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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screens/buttons/fields as text. That tells an agent the call is a planning step and the actual mutation happens elsewhere, which annotations alone would not convey.

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 core sentence sequence is front-loaded and useful, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the trailing note about Acuity's REST API and no official MCP server (checked 17 Oct 2026) are vendor framing rather than invocation guidance. The description carries a bit more words than its instruction content warrants.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must say what comes back, and it does ('how to do it in Acuity Scheduling step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Combined with the zero-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly and know what to do with the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, so the empty object shape is self-explanatory.

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 ('Reschedule appointment in the user's own Acuity Scheduling account') and then reframes the actual function: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. That reframing is necessary because the name alone would mislead, and it separates this tool from siblings like acuity_scheduling_cancel_appointment without naming them.

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 routes the agent onward: after getting the steps, do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. That is a clear when-and-how-next. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. when to prefer the official REST API or a sibling scheduling tool instead.

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