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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description carries the rest well: it preserves length and clean-up time, refuses overlaps, confirms before scheduling outside working hours, and does not text the client. These are concrete side effects and failure modes, though auth/permission requirements and the confirmation flow wording ('asks' whom) remain unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying the action, the id source, duration preservation, conflict handling, working-hours confirmation, and the no-notification side effect. No filler.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies the important behavioral facts (preserves duration, refuses overlaps, confirmation outside hours, no client text). Missing only return/error surface detail and parameter format conventions.

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 explain id ('from my_schedule') and indirectly the allow_outside_hours boolean ('asks first outside working hours'), but leaves date/time formats and the exact meaning of allow_outside_hours (override vs prompt) undocumented.

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 ('Move an appointment') plus the scope (to a new date and time) and points to the source of the id ('id from my_schedule'). An agent can distinguish this from book_appointment, cancel_appointment, and update_appointment_status without opening any 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 useful context ('id from my_schedule') and a conditional behavior ('asks first outside working hours'), but never names an alternative operation or states when this should be preferred over cancel+rebook or update_appointment_status. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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