indico_move_timetable_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds no behavior: it does not say whether duration is preserved, whether related/linked entries move, or what permissions are needed for an in-place reschedule.

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 the verb, resource and object scope, and zero wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool the definition is thin: no duration/side-effect disclosure and no guidance for the undocumented entry_id leave an agent under-informed about invocation consequences.

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 coverage is 75% and the crucial entry_id parameter has no schema description; the tool description does not compensate by explaining how entry_id is obtained. The 'start' semantics (local time, ISO without offset) live entirely in the schema, not the description.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource ('Change the start time of a timetable entry') and disambiguates the object by noting it can be a contribution or session block. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like indico_unschedule_timetable_entry or indico_update_session_block.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the unschedule/schedule-contribution siblings or of any preconditions (e.g. entry must already be scheduled), leaving usage to inference.

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