Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: passing date 'stores a date override and leaves other weeks unchanged,' which tells the agent the two modes have different blast radii. It omits reversibility, permissions, and what happens when the slot does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then two scannable bullets keyed to the two modes, then a short safety instruction. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important mode distinction and the confirmation step. Gaps remain around invalid parameter combinations, behavior when the target slot is missing, and what the tool reports back — meaningful for a destructiveHint=true tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds real meaning by grouping weekday/local_time/new_local_time/tag as a template edit and date as the one-off switch. It says nothing about tag_name versus tag_color pairing, or about social_set when a user belongs to multiple sets, leaving those to the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Move or retag a posting slot.' That distinguishes it from add_posting_slot and remove_posting_slot by operation. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings, so it lands just below the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives two concrete invocation modes: template-wide change (weekday + local_time + new_local_time and/or tag) versus a single-date override (also pass date). It also states a prerequisite, 'Confirm with the user before moving a slot.' It does not state when-not-to-use or name the sibling tools for removal/addition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.