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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the non-obvious mechanics that make it partially destructive — pass only the fields that change, and an empty string clears a date. It does not mention permissions, validation of start vs end date, or side effects on related time entries, but the added context beyond the annotations is substantive.

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, front-loaded with what changes, followed by the operational rule for optional fields. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is mutable, that updates are partial, and how to clear values. It leaves unaddressed the interaction with ticket status (closed/reopened tickets) and whether date ordering is validated, which are minor but real gaps for a destructive operation.

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 75% and already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and ticket_id source; the description adds the crucial partial-update semantic (only pass what changes) and the empty-string clearing convention, which is not obvious from the schema alone. The priority enum values are left to the schema, which is acceptable since they are self-describing.

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 (changes) plus the exact mutable resources (start date, end/due date, priority) and gives a concrete example ('moves it to next week'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like close_ticket, reopen_ticket, or update_time_entry.

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 example implies the intended use case (shifting a ticket to a later date), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus close_ticket/reopen_ticket, nor any prerequisite such as whether closed tickets can be rescheduled. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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