Supplement the due date

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

Annotations are minimal; the description adds value by listing specific error types (INVALID_PAYLOAD, NOT_FOUND, CONFLICT, TNIQ_ERROR) and the activation constraint. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two efficient sentences, no fluff, and presents key information upfront.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not explain return values or success indicators. It covers the main purpose and constraints but lacks completeness for a mutation tool, especially regarding what happens after a successful change.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning 'optionally for a subset of TNs' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 changes the desired due date of a submitted port, with optional subset of TNs. It uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions the acronym SUP_DDD for clarity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling port tools, it is distinct enough.

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 specifies that the tool is only valid before activation, returning CONFLICT otherwise. This gives clear context for when to use it, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it in comparison with other tools.

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