move_occurrence

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral traits: the exact format required for occurrence, the effect of omitting new_end (duration preserved), and that the rest of the series is unchanged. It even mentions the response fields (series_remaining, overrides) to make the claim observable, providing significant transparency beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is four sentences, each adding value: purpose, critical format warning, the move semantics, and response observability. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is complex (recurring series, timezone handling) and has no output schema or annotations, yet the description covers the essential context: how to reference the instance, how to specify the move, duration behavior, series impact, and what the response will reveal. This is enough to guide an agent toward correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 20% (only new_start has a description), so the tool description compensates strongly. It explains the precise format for occurrence (including UTC offset and why bare local times may fail), the role of new_start/new_end, and the optional nature of new_end. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's field names and types.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource combination ('Reschedule a single occurrence of a series') and clarifies it as a RECURRENCE-ID override. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like exclude_occurrence and update_event, making the unique purpose obvious.

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 provides clear contextual usage by explaining how to identify the occurrence (must match list_events output) and the meaning of new_start/new_end. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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