Reschedule project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that fixed and already-started tasks act as anchors and don't move, that nothing shifts before the status date, that the direction is a one-off recalculation rather than stored state, and that it consumes exactly one undo step. These mutation-behavior details (persistence, undo cost, anchoring rules) are exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The menu-entry reference is slightly indirect but earns its place by anchoring the behavior to a known UI action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essential behavioral contract (anchors, status date, non-persistent direction, single undo). Complete for calling the tool correctly, with only sibling routing left unaddressed.

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 100% and the enum values are already documented in the schema, so the description adds only the note that the direction is not persisted. That is a useful nuance but not enough to exceed the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Reschedules the project') and clarifies it maps to the 'Recalculate as early as possible'/'as late as possible' commands, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling rillsoft_project_status_date_reschedule, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied via the menu-entry analogy and the pointer that rillsoft_project_tree_get shows the new dates afterwards, which hints at the workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of the alternative reschedule tools (e.g. project_status_date_reschedule, task_progress_recalculate), leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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