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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the move can reach the client, the default per-call confirmation can be disabled, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. These notification and auth details go 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 purpose is restated twice ("Move an appointment to a new time..." then "Moves one appointment to a new start time, keeping its services"), which is redundant. The remaining confirmation/auth sentences are useful but the opening could be tightened.

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 mutating tool with client-facing side effects and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (find_available_slots), the side effect (reaches the client), confirmation behavior, and auth needs. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though return behavior is unspecified.

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 parameters are already documented. The description clarifies intent ("Set team_member_id to hand it to someone else") but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (move/reschedule), resource (appointment), and scope (new start time, optionally a different team member, keeping services). An agent can distinguish this from create_appointment, cancel_appointment, and list_appointments without opening the schema.

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 to find_available_slots before choosing the new time, and states the confirmation expectation. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative for related operations like cancel.

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