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

Annotations only carry shallow flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description shoulders the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the attendee email side effect, the re-armed 24h reminder, the booking.rescheduled integration event, and two concrete rejection modes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 four efficient sentences ordered logically: action, prerequisite, side effects, and failure conditions. Every sentence delivers new, necessary information and none of them repeat the schema or annotations. The primary purpose is front-loaded in sentence one.

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 mutation tool with a sequential dependency, external side effects, and race-condition failures, the description covers all essential elements: the prerequisite call, the slot selection, the effects of the operation, and the cases where it will be rejected. Since an output schema is present, omitting return-value details is acceptable, leaving no notable gap.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the requirement that startAt must be a slot from get_booking_availability. The description adds meaningful context beyond this baseline: the booking belongs to the current team, the acting role must be the organiser, and the startAt must be selected from that specific booking's availability call. This helps an agent choose the right values without being redundant.

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 begins with the specific action and resource: 'Move a confirmed booking of the current team to a different time, as the organiser.' It precisely limits scope to the current team and an organiser role, which distinguishes it in a glance from siblings like update_booking_status, review_booking, and get_booking_availability. An agent can tell exactly what resource is being changed 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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to call get_booking_availability with the bookingId first and to pick a startAt from the returned slots, which is a mandatory ordering constraint. It also states rejection conditions (slot taken, respondent already has an active booking, booking not scheduled), clarifying when the call will fail. It stops short of a 5 because it does not name alternatives for different intent (e.g., when to use update_booking_status or review_booking), but the context is very clear.

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