update_deadline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scheduling side effect (window re-pick), the re-score behavior, and three failure modes (running/terminal state, invalid deadline, past deadline). It omits permissions/auth and idempotency, but the mutation and error profile is well covered.

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?

Effectively one sentence front-loading the action and effect, with the error conditions tagged on efficiently. No filler and nothing that restates the name or title.

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 and no annotations, so the description must convey behavior; it covers the mutation, the rescheduling semantics, and failure cases adequately. The one real gap is what the tool returns (new window, new score, or a status) for a caller needing to confirm the result.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema, which is the baseline 3. The description reinforces that the deadline must be future-dated, consistent with the schema's note, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific compound verb (re-score and reschedule) plus the resource (queued or scheduled task) and the mechanism (scheduler re-picks the cleanest window inside the new deadline). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like schedule_task or retry_task, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Applicability is defined by state: only queued or scheduled tasks qualify, and running/terminal tasks are excluded via the throw condition. The 'when not to use' is implied through those error cases rather than stated as an explicit routing rule to a sibling.

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