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

The annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the one-change limit, fee consequences, escalation path to WhatsApp, unchanged Meet link, and email notifications. Nothing contradicts the destructive annotation.

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 core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct rule or side effect. There is no filler despite the density of business logic.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers preconditions, limits, alternatives, and post-change effects. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by implying slot_date/slot_time must be a new time with the same psychologist and should be validated via check_availability. It does not add format details for ref or poll_key, but it does constrain the new-slot parameters meaningfully.

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 a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a CONFIRMED session') and scopes it to 'the same psychologist'. This clearly distinguishes it from create_booking_draft and cancel_booking_draft without needing the schema.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility rules (once per session, >=24 hours away, no charge), says what happens otherwise (second change is a cancellation, inside 24 hours goes to WhatsApp/ElloMind), and names check_availability as the required prerequisite for the new time.

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