pws_reschedule_show

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it 'rerun the show audit for availability,' providing useful context about the post-move validation. However, it does not disclose whether moving is a cut-and-paste or copy operation, nor what happens to the original show. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence that is efficient and front-loads the key actions. It wastes no words but could benefit from a more structured breakdown of parameters. Still, it is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 destructive tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: the semantics of preview vs. confirmed, what confirmation requires, and the effects on the original show. The audit rerun is mentioned but not explained. An agent would still need to interrogate the schema or server.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies showId and airDate through the action ('to another game date') but fails to explain the preview and confirmed parameters, which are crucial for invoking correctly. No details on parameter formats, defaults, or interaction.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('PREVIEW OR MOVE') and resource ('unfinished player-company show') with a clear action (moving to another game date). It distinguishes from siblings like pws_schedule_show and pws_cancel_show by specifying the rescheduling context and the audit step.

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?

Provides implicit usage context ('unfinished player-company show') but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as pws_schedule_show or pws_cancel_show. The absence of exclusions or cross-references leaves some inference to the agent.

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