reschedule_habit_occurrence

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the backend returns 501 for habits (legacy storage) and that the tool is exposed for forward compatibility. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., what happens if the target date already has an occurrence) or error states beyond the note.

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 with three clear sentences. The version note is relevant but adds a slight overhead. Information about resolution and date format is front-loaded after the main purpose.

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?

Given 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the essential parameter formats and a critical behavioral caveat (501 error). An output schema exists but is not utilized; the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly despite the limitation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds valuable meaning: it explains that habit_id accepts multiple reference forms (UUID, sequence shorthand, canonical ref, app URL) and is resolved to UUID. It explicitly states that date and new_date are YYYY-MM-DD occurrence dates, not item references.

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 verb ('Move'), the resource ('a single habit occurrence'), and the constraint ('without touching the cadence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reschedule_chore_occurrence and reschedule_event_occurrence by specifying 'habit'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions a backend limitation (501 error for habits) but does not explain when rescheduling a habit is appropriate or when other actions (e.g., updating the habit) might be preferred.

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