things_schedule_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state non-idempotently. The description adds timezone semantics (local macOS calendar time) and a verification route via activation date / Today membership. It does not, however, disclose whether an existing start date is overwritten, what auth is required, or what the verification statement concretely means.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic about how verification actually works, but it is not padding.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and three parameters, the description leaves key gaps: the behavior of expected_modified_at (conflict detection), overwrite semantics for an existing date, and error/verification outcomes. What is present is accurate but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 clarifies the format and timezone for 'date' (YYYY-MM-DD, local macOS calendar time, start date rather than deadline), but 'id' and especially the concurrency token 'expected_modified_at' get no explanation at all, leaving the schema to carry meaning it does not carry.

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 verb and resource: set a task's start date. It also disambiguates the field, noting it is separate from the deadline, which helps distinguish it from a generic update. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling things_update_task, which plausibly also writes dates.

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?

Usage is only implied: pick this rather than a generic update when you specifically want to set the start/schedule date. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention of prerequisites.

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