recalculate_review_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says retrievability is recomputed but does not state whether this mutates stored schedules, whether it is idempotent, whether it affects due dates, or what the return value is. The word 'recompute' hints at a write-like operation but leaves the impact unclear.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a brief note about the 'now' parameter without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether this is a safe read-only calculation or a mutating operation, what the 'now' parameter does, or what the result means. Sibling tools like schedule_review and get_due_reviews suggest a scheduling workflow, but the description does not place this tool within 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the learner_id parameter implicitly by saying 'of a learner', but the 'now' parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and description. The description adds some meaning for learner_id but not for now, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('Recompute') and resource ('retrievability for every review item of a learner'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like schedule_review or get_due_reviews, but the recompute-all semantics are reasonably 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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as schedule_review, get_due_reviews, or submit_review. The description implies a batch recomputation use case but does not state prerequisites, side effects, or exclusions.

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