Move the expected signal date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint, confirming it is a mutating POST call, but says nothing about whether the previous expected date is overwritten, what the reason is used for, or what the response returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the action is stated before the endpoint parenthetical. Very terse, but nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: effect on existing signal state, role/auth requirements, and the purpose of reason. An agent has enough to guess a call but not to call it confidently.

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 only 33%; expectedSignalAt is documented in the schema but id and reason are not. The description gestures at the expected date but adds no meaning for the required id or the optional reason field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (push/postpone) and resource (the date the signal is expected), plus the underlying endpoint POST /actions/{id}/postpone. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as forbiz_close or forbiz_mark_executed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for rescheduling an expected signal rather than recording, claiming, or closing one.

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