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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers the most important non-obvious side effect: moving the date clears the sent reminder so the customer is reminded again. It omits what permissions are required and whether any other state (e.g. completion status) is affected.

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 tight sentences, the mutation scope front-loaded and the side effect second; no filler or restatement of 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 an output schema available, the description supplies the action scope, the affected fields, the key side effect, and the 'open' precondition; an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Remaining details (permission model, edge cases) are secondary.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does by naming three of the four arguments (title, date, repeat) and anchoring them to the due date identified by service_due_id. It adds the semantic consequence of changing the date, though it doesn't clarify boundaries such as the repeat_months max of 60.

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 (Change) applied to a specific resource (an open service due date) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, date, repeat), which cleanly separates it from the sibling services_addDue, services_cancelDue, services_completeDue and services_listDue.

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 word 'open' implies a precondition (only open due dates can be modified) and the parenthetical '(owner or office)' hints at who may call it, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the add/cancel/complete siblings or what to do for closed due dates.

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