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 mutation profile is known. The description adds which fields change, but does not say whether setting notes replaces existing text, whether status changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability stated first and the alternative last. Nothing redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the main paths but leaves is_online unexplained and gives no indication of what the response contains or how partial updates behave.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate; it names the status values, notes and 'place' (location), and the schema documents appointmentId via get_schedule. However is_online is never mentioned and the enum values are only partly enumerated in 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?

States specific verbs and resources: setting status (completed, no-show, confirmed) or editing notes/location on a class. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from reschedule_class and from list/get tools.

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?

It explicitly routes time changes to reschedule_class, which is helpful. But the sibling list contains confirm_class, cancel_class and decline_class, which appear to overlap with the status values this tool sets, and the description gives no guidance on which to prefer.

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