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

Even with annotations marking this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the move is not committed until the confirmation email is accepted, a failure leaves the original booking intact, and times must be shown in both the user's timezone and yesmcp's timezone with an explicit UTC offset. This goes well beyond 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 dense but not bloated, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, required inputs, commit semantics, time format, and timezone handling rules. The most important constraints are front-loaded and the no-bare-time rule is a sharp, actionable final instruction.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the source of the new slot ID, failure behavior, and how to present results to the user. There is enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly and to handle the conversation and safety-sensitive timezone aspects.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter completely. The description reinforces that all three inputs are required and that newSlotId comes from list_availability, but it does not add substantially new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 moves an existing consultation booking to a different window while preserving the reference. This distinguishes it from book_consult (new booking) and cancel_booking (removal), and the verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies the required inputs, points to list_availability as the source for newSlotId, and tells the agent to ask for all three pieces of user data. It does not explicitly contrast with cancel-and-rebook workflows, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to select and sequence this tool correctly.

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