Set SCHEDULED/DEADLINE

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the two key behavioral nuances: omitting a field leaves it unchanged, while passing null clears it. This is essential for correct invocation and goes beyond a simple 'update' statement, though it doesn't mention side effects or error conditions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the two key behaviors (set/clear) and the omission rule. No fluff; every clause earns its place.

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 tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary call semantics: what the tool does, how to set or clear, and the meaning of omission. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional documentation.

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% and each parameter already includes 'or null to clear' in its description. The tool description adds the crucial distinction between omitting a field (leave unchanged) and passing null (clear), which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('set, change, or clear') and a clear resource ('SCHEDULED and/or DEADLINE timestamps on an entry'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like org_update_state by focusing on timestamp fields specifically.

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?

The description implies this tool is used for managing scheduling timestamps but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It gives the operation but no guidance on when to prefer this over org_capture or org_update_state.

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