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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful context that the change waits for owner approval, but it does not explain what happens to the original visit, whether the operation is asynchronous, or what the caller should expect after invoking it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by an important approval caveat. There is no wasted text.

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 rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the main action and the owner-approval behavior. It is slightly incomplete about what the caller should expect after the approval wait, but no output schema exists and the core invocation guidance is present.

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%, and the schema already documents booking_id, date, and notify clearly. The description reinforces the later-visit constraint on date but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: postpone a visit of a recurring booking to a later visit date. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as cancel_booking or create_booking.

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?

It implies the tool is for recurring bookings and only for moving a visit to a later date already in the schedule. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of cancel_booking, create_booking, or adjust other booking details.

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