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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call can be refused due to booking rules, that confirmation is on by default and toggleable, that it reaches other people requiring user confirmation, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is needed. These are exactly the side-effect, failure-mode, and auth details an agent needs for a write 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, constraints, and auth notes in logical order. Slightly boilerplate care-notice sentences keep it from being maximally tight, but there is little waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers refusal risk, confirmation behavior, external side effects, and auth requirements. The main remaining gap is it doesn't describe the response shape, but that is minor against the thorough behavioral coverage.

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 appointment_id (from list_appointments), start (ISO 8601 with time zone), and staff_id. The description only echoes staff_id as 'optionally to another staff member,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Move an appointment to a new time or staff member,' then clarifies it moves a single appointment's start time and optionally its staff. This is cleanly distinguishable from sibling create_appointment/list_appointments/get_appointment without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the operational context: booking rules still apply so the call can be refused, and it moves an existing appointment rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. cancel+create), but the when-to-use is clear.

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