update_case_due_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only offers the word 'mutation' and the example. It does not describe effects, idempotency, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of a category, operation type, and a useful example. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It does not differentiate from similar case-related mutations, making it incomplete for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description's example reveals the structure of the 'input' object (caseId and dueAt), which is not detailed in the schema. This adds practical meaning for constructing a correct request, though it does not address customer_slug.

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 does not explicitly state the tool's function; it labels it as 'Cases · mutation updateCaseDueDate' and provides an example input. The purpose is inferable from the name and variable names, but the description itself is vague and does not distinguish this from siblings like update_case or update_case_owner.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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