Set status date

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

With readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description still adds real value: 'without recomputing anything' scopes the side effect, and 'one undo step' discloses reversibility granularity. These go beyond what the annotations convey, though return-value shape is left to the output 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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scoping constraint, followed by sibling routing and the undo note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope of side effects, sibling routing, edge-case handling (values before project start), and undo semantics.

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 only parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pattern and the lift-to-start rule. The description restates the lift behavior rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sets the status date of the project') and immediately distinguishes itself from the two closely-named siblings rillsoft_project_status_date_reschedule and rillsoft_project_reschedule. An agent can tell exactly which of the three it needs without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: moving unfinished work is a separate deliberate step via rillsoft_project_status_date_reschedule, and full recomputation goes via rillsoft_project_reschedule. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at its clearest.

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