reschedule-tasks

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description adds crucial context by explaining that recurrence patterns are preserved and only the date is changed. It also clarifies that a date-only input preserves existing time. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention other potential side effects or limitations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide differentiation and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter with full schema coverage), an output schema, and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers the behavioral contract. It doesn't discuss error cases or prerequisites, but those are not critical for this type of operation. The key distinction from update-tasks is well-handled.

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?

The schema already documents the 'tasks' parameter thoroughly with 100% coverage. The description enhances this by explaining the nuance that a date-only value preserves an existing specific time, and directly ties the date parameter to the recurrence-preservation behavior. This adds value beyond the schema.

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: reschedule tasks to new dates while preserving recurring schedules. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool update-tasks, specifying that this tool only changes the date and keeps recurrence patterns intact, making it distinct.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. update-tasks: 'Use this when moving recurring tasks to a different date without altering their repeat pattern.' This directly addresses usage context and alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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