due_again_complete

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

Annotations only give the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral content on top: the system auto-derives the next due date from the schedule, and the date cannot be in the future. It stops short of saying whether repeat calls create duplicate completion records, which the non-idempotent hint implies but does not confirm.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the id provenance and the date constraint. Nothing is 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?

Covers the action, its automatic side effect, id provenance, and the date bound for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Gaps are minor: the cost/note parameters and the expected response are never characterized.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description carries weight: it establishes itemId provenance (must come from due_again_items) and adds the 'cannot be in the future' constraint on date that the schema's pattern alone does not express. cost and note are still left undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is partial.

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+resource pair ('Record that a Due Again item was done') and immediately distinguishes itself from due_again_add_item / due_again_history by naming the completion event. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Points the agent to due_again_items as the source of the item id, which is the key prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g. vs. due_again_history for viewing past completions), but the completion framing makes the context clear.

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