set_task_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it rewrites only the task's line, which bounds the side effect. It also flags a format dependency (Obsidian Tasks configured date format). It is silent on permissions, failure modes (e.g., invalid or nonexistent date), and the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope-limiting and boundary facts following in priority order. Every sentence contributes something an agent can act on.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the format dependency, the side-effect scope, and the completion-date exclusion. The main remaining gap is that permissions and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the id format, the YYYY-MM-DD / "none" convention, and the start/due enum. The description adds only the format context ('Obsidian Tasks format, the configured date format'), which is marginal on top of 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 names a specific verb pair (sets/removes) and resource (start date or due date of a task), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling tool for the excluded case, referring instead to 'moving the task to the done column' rather than move_task.

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 gives an implied use case (setting/removing start or due dates) and one boundary: completion dates are out of scope and handled by a column move. That boundary is useful but is phrased as an aside and never names the alternative tool or states when to prefer this over siblings like toggle_task.

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