Update service dates

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the two modes (intervals after next_due_date vs. explicit hold-off dates) and that dates must be today or future. However, it does not disclose behavior if both modes are supplied, whether existing scheduling is overwritten, or other side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant information. The second sentence adds a practical use case, making every word earn its place.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and use case but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify whether at least one optional parameter is required, how conflicting inputs are handled, or the effect on existing settings. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail on expected input constraints would make it more complete, but it is adequate for a straightforward update tool.

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 75%, so baseline is near 3. The description enriches the parameter semantics by explaining that intervals are 'days after next_due_date' and listing the explicit hold-off parameters, which the schema only minimally describes (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD). It does not fully elaborate on every parameter but adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool changes suspend/cancel/close scheduling for a contract product, using specific terms for the fields and distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_contract_product or update_contract_product_price. The verb "Change" plus the resource "contract product" and the explicit scheduling aspects make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case ('Useful to give clients extra time before suspension') and implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the scheduling focus is distinct from sibling tools, the context is sufficient for selection, though it lacks explicit exclusions.

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