propose_set_due_date

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers safety, and the description is consistent with it ("dry run"). It adds non-schema context: the operation mirrors Anki's set due date and the tool is disabled unless enabled, which the agent cannot learn from annotations alone. It stops short of explaining the resulting plan or how it feeds into apply_plan.

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?

Very tight: one sentence plus a trailing clause, with the operation front-loaded before the format example and the enablement caveat. No wasted words, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 two-param dry-run tool with no output schema it covers purpose, format, and the enabled/disabled caveat. It omits what a successful proposal produces and how it relates to apply_plan/reject_plan, the closest siblings, leaving the workflow relationship implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully documents the days format ("days='0' or '1-3'"), but card_ids is unexplained and no detail is given on accepted ranges, indexing, or constraints — partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 (propose/dry run) and resource (rescheduling cards / Anki set due date), and the parenthetical makes the operation concrete. It does not explicitly name a sibling or how it differs from other propose_* tools beyond the shared prefix, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

"Dry run for rescheduling cards" implies this is a staging/no-op operation, and "Off unless enabled" hints the tool may be gated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so usage is left to inference from the propose_* naming convention.

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