reschedule_event_occurrence

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the internal behavior: marking origin as 'Dropped' with rescheduled_to, creating new 'Scheduled' row with rescheduled_from, and returning 400 if new_date equals origin date. It also explains the flexible event_id format.

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?

The description is concise (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains event_id, then the effect on data, and an error condition. No unnecessary 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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter details, internal behavior, and an error condition. Combined with the presence of an output schema (to describe return values), this is complete for a mutation 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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining event_id in detail (accepts various reference forms and resolves to UUID). However, it does not explicitly describe the 'date' parameter (the origin date) beyond mentioning 'origin_date', and 'new_date' is trivial. Overall adds significant value for one parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Move a single event occurrence to new_date without touching the RRULE.' This is specific, uses a verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reschedule_chore_occurrence and reschedule_habit_occurrence which target different item types.

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 description implies the tool is for event occurrences and mentions it doesn't affect the RRULE, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_event_occurrence. It provides context for use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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