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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds that the new slot is checked for conflicts, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to the original booking (e.g., cancellation), but the conflict check is a useful disclosure beyond annotations.

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 description is three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential details. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers input origins, conflict checking, and authentication requirements. It does not explain return values or error cases, but given the tool's low complexity, the information provided is fairly complete.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the provenance of each parameter (e.g., 'lookup_token from book_appointment', 'new_start_time from get_availability'), which helps the agent understand how to obtain valid values.

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 starts with 'Move a booking you made to a new time', which clearly states the verb (move) and resource (booking). This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like book_appointment (create) and cancel_appointment (delete).

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 explicitly lists required parameters and their sources (booking_id and lookup_token from book_appointment, new times from get_availability). It states conflict checking and that no account is needed, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when the booking belongs to someone else or when changing the business/service). Still, the guidance is clear for the intended use case.

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