Reschedule at status date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those annotations: only unfinished work moves, finished work and pre-status dates stay, conflicts with fixed milestones cause a full rollback, and the operation is a single undo step.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then efficiently names alternatives and rollback behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter, stateful project operation. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, and the description covers scope, exclusions, conflict handling, and undo behavior sufficiently for an agent to invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries no additional parameter semantics. Per the calibration rule, a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage has a baseline of 4.

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 and resource: reschedules unfinished work at the status date. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rillsoft_project_reschedule and rillsoft_project_status_date_set, so an agent can identify its exact scope without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance by describing the limited scope of the operation and names the two alternative tools that should be used for whole-schedule rescheduling and status-date changes. No exclusions are left implicit.

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