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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses side effects (Google Calendar event is moved, both parties notified) which is useful, though it does not explicitly state that this is a mutation/destructive action or whether the original booking is destroyed vs. replaced. Still, the disclosed consequences add meaningful value.

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?

Two efficient sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, ordering guidance, and consequences — zero filler. Well structured and front-loaded.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, workflow ordering, and side effects. It does not describe the expected return value, though no output schema exists, leaving a minor gap for what the agent can expect back on success.

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 100%, with each parameter (date, time, manageToken) already documented in the schema including format examples and provenance. The description reinforces the manageToken source and time format but adds marginal value beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource (move meeting) with specific scope ('booked earlier in this conversation') and sibling differentiation: it explicitly references book-meeting and get-meeting-slots, distinguishing this modification/reschedule action from book-meeting and cancel-meeting.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (manageToken from book-meeting), instructs to check availability with get-meeting-slots first, and provides behavioral consequences (Google Calendar event moved, both sides notified). This gives clear when/how guidance against sibling tools.

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