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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a maximum of 2 reschedules, a 24-hour lead-time restriction, and a required user-confirmation workflow. These are real operational constraints an agent must honor and cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and the two most important constraints front-loaded. No filler, though the clause about the email used to book is slightly redundant with the subsequent sentence.

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-ish mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, reschedule limits, and the timing restriction well. It stops short of stating what a successful or failed reschedule returns or what happens to the original slot on failure.

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 33% — just new_start is documented, and even that mirrors the description's pointer to get_studio_slots. The description names booking reference and booking email as the identifying pair, adding mild meaning, but it never explains the FSF- reference format or the email constraints encoded in the schema patterns.

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 and resource ('moves an existing studio booking ... to a new free time') plus the identifiers required. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cancel_studio_booking and request_studio_booking without opening a 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 prerequisites ('check free times first with get_studio_slots for the same package'), a confirmation step ('confirm the new time with the user'), and a hard exclusion ('not possible less than 24 hours before the current session'). When-to-use, the alternative tool, and when-not are all stated.

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