he_update_exchange_dates

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It states the mutation ('Update') and implies importance via the confirmation note, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting prior dates), authorization needs, or error conditions. The agent has limited knowledge of destructive potential or safety.

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 concise (one sentence plus an important note) and front-loaded with the action. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify expected return values, error handling, and the structural requirements of the dates object. It lacks this context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Conversation ID' and 'New dates object'), covering 100% of parameters. However, 'New dates object' is vague; the description does not expand on expected structure (e.g., start/end, format), leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate the nested dates object correctly.

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 specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'exchange dates for a conversation', which is distinct from sibling tools that update other aspects of exchanges (e.g., type, home) or other entities (e.g., calendar, home). It clearly identifies the tool's unique function.

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 includes the explicit requirement 'IMPORTANT: ask user confirmation', which is a clear precondition for usage. However, it does not contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., when to use change_exchange_home instead) or specify scenarios where it should not be used.

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