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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the state transition ('Moves scheduled/pending_confirmation → confirmed'), side effect ('notifies the provider'), idempotency behavior ('alreadyConfirmed=true'), and actor semantics ('org API key owner is recorded as the actor'), which goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 dense and front-loaded, with each sentence providing distinct value: purpose, state change, differentiation, idempotency, and actor. The ADR-004 reference adds specificity but may be cryptic; still, the structure is efficient.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavioral facets: state transition, notification, idempotency, and actor. It doesn't mention failure conditions or prerequisites, but the core semantics are well covered.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't directly explain each parameter. However, 'org API key owner' clarifies apiKey, 'session' implies sessionId, and orgSlug's role as a route scope is inferable. Names are self-explanatory, but the description should have explicitly addressed required parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Confirm') with a specific resource ('client's attendance to their session') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the 'client-portal confirm flow' versus the org's admin confirm in booking_update_status.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use context ('on behalf of the client (e.g. the client called or messaged the org)') and explicitly names the alternative ('distinct from the org's own admin confirm in booking_update_status'), making it easy to select over siblings.

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