plu_update_exchange_dates

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It indicates this is a mutation (update) and requires user confirmation, but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or constraints on when dates can be changed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes value.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool, the description covers the core purpose and a critical usage rule (confirmation). However, it omits date format, partial update behavior, and potential error conditions, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter details. While parameter names (exchangeId, startDate, endDate) are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any format or meaning guidance leaves the agent to guess, e.g., date string format.

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?

Description states 'Update exchange dates,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plu_update_exchange_type (which modifies type, not dates) and plu_cancel_exchange.

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?

Includes a clear usage prerequisite: 'Ask user confirmation.' However, no guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating dates vs. creating a new exchange).

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