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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the important cascading effect that reset_schedule rebuilds later attempts, which justifies the destructive hint, but it does not say what happens when reset_schedule is false or what failures/permissions to expect. The 'WRITE:' prefix merely restates annotations.

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?

Two sentences, mutation marker and core action front-loaded, conditional side effect second, and the HTTP endpoint appended compactly. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the schedule-rebuild side effect. Only edge behavior when reset_schedule=false is left implicit.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including date/time/timezone formats and the subscription_id vs internal_id distinction. The description adds nothing about parameter interaction beyond echoing reset_schedule's rebuild behavior, which the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a billing attempt ... to another date and time') plus a scope restriction ('that has not been processed yet'), which separates it from delete/skip/process siblings without naming them. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The precondition 'has not been processed yet' implies when the tool applies, and reset_schedule's effect is noted. However, it never states the alternatives (skip_billing_attempt, delete_billing_attempt, process_charge) or what an agent should do when the attempt is already processed.

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