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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'reschedule' which implies a mutation but does not detail what happens to the original appointment (e.g., whether it is deleted and recreated, or updated in place), whether it is destructive to any existing data, or any implications like conflict handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, and operates on existing data (a mutation), the description should provide more context about the side effects of rescheduling (e.g., what happens to the original appointment, whether it overrides or requires availability, and any restrictions). The schema covers parameter formats, but the description fails to explain the operational impact, which is essential for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains the purpose of each parameter. The description adds no extra context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to reschedule an existing Jobber calendar visit (appointment) to a new date and time. The verb 'reschedule' and resource 'Jobber calendar visit / appointment' are specific, and the action is distinct from creating or canceling a visit, though it could be more explicit about which sibling it replaces.

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 implies the tool is used when an existing visit needs a new date/time, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like jobber_schedule_visit (for new visits) or jobber_cancel_visit (for cancellations). It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions, but the adjacent siblings are clear enough for an agent to infer.

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