Set Document Journal Date

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnly=false, so the safety frame is covered. The description usefully adds side-effect information the annotations cannot convey: customJournal and custom document properties are left intact when the native journal date changes.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the clearing/preservation caveats follow immediately. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the set/clear semantics and preservation behavior for this narrow mutation. Minor gaps remain around required permissions and whether the document must already be journal-eligible, but nothing critical for a correct call 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 description coverage is only 33%: docId and workspaceId are undocumented in both schema and description. The one sentence about `date` merely restates the schema's own 'YYYY-MM-DD format, or null to clear it', so the description adds no compensating meaning for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb pair ('Set or clear') and a precise resource ('AFFiNE's native Journal date for a document'), and the word 'native' plus the note that customJournal properties are preserved separates it from custom-property siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g., set_doc_property) 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?

It states the accepted format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the exact condition for removal (null), so an agent knows both the set and clear paths. It does not spell out when to prefer this over custom properties or what preconditions (journal enabled on the workspace, doc existence) apply.

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