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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses authentication requirements: user login token or bound cloud marketplace credentials, plus 401 and 40003 error behavior with data.bindUrl. It still omits some mutation traits such as whether rescheduling can fail due to availability or policy constraints.

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?

The purpose and authentication requirements are front-loaded and the auth/error details are useful. However, the line '本体: reservation → Action: modify' largely restates the tool name and title, adding minor redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives adequate operational context around auth and errors. It is incomplete because the critical appointmentDate format is unspecified in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess the required date syntax.

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 compensate. It does clarify that the operation uses a reservation number and a new reservation date, mapping to reservationId and appointmentDate, but it does not specify the expected date format or other constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing a reservation date, explicitly '按预约号改期' by reservation number. The action 'modify' is clearly distinct from sibling operations such as reservation_book and reservation_cancel.

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 makes clear this is for rescheduling an existing reservation by reservation number, which implies use only when modifying a date rather than booking or cancelling. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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