set_deadline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the accepted date format and that 'none' removes the deadline entirely. It says nothing about invalid-date handling or permission requirements.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the accepted values, with no filler. It reads as a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the format and clearing semantics an agent needs. The only substantive omission is the meaning of the `id` argument.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does well for `deadline` (concrete YYYY-MM-DD format plus the 'none' sentinel). However, the `id` parameter is left completely unexplained, and it is not stated whether it identifies a task or another entity type, which is a real ambiguity for a required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Змінити дедлайн" / change deadline) and immediately explains the value format, so the action is unambiguous. It lacks any explicit contrast with siblings such as edit_task, which an agent might reasonably consider for the same change.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus edit_task or move_task, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the id refers to a task or a board). The only usage cue is the 'none' sentinel for clearing, which is a formatting rule rather than selection guidance.

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