Move or drop a follow-up

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it documents the confirmation protocol (client dialog or dry_run plus confirm token), the expected_version conflict refusal, the automatic backup, and that undo_last_write reverts the change. This is strong disclosure for a destructiveHint=true write. Minor gap: it doesn't say what the dry_run preview or confirmation dialog actually contains.

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?

Purpose and alternative routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the write-safety protocol following. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the second paragraph is slightly run-on and could be split for scanability.

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, six-parameter write tool with an output schema available, the description covers the full decision surface: when to call, what not to call, the confirm/dry_run flow, concurrency refusal, backup, and revert path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds workflow meaning to confirm and dry_run by explaining the preview-then-repeat-with-token sequence that the per-parameter text only states statically. It adds no detail beyond the schema for row, on, reason, or expected_version.

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 ('Move the next follow-up to another date, or plan none') and immediately constrains it with a condition ('when nothing was sent'), with concrete examples. It is clearly separable from log_followup (a follow-up was sent) and set_status (close an application), both named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (no one to write to yet, waiting for message credits, company promised an answer by a date) plus when-not-to with two named alternatives and their triggering conditions. Nothing about sibling selection is left to inference.

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