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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it returns the old and new time, requires calendar access for cross-provider moves, notifies other people (prompting user confirmation), and needs an API key with app access.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints and prerequisites in a logical order. Some content (confirmation default, Cotlet API key line) reads as generic boilerplate that could be trimmed, but nothing is misleading.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (old and new time), and it covers the permission and confirmation preconditions for a cross-provider move. Remaining gaps (error behavior, what happens to the client's calendar invite) are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so start, provider_id, notify_client and appointment_id are all documented in the schema. The description echoes the date/time/provider changes but adds no syntax or default semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Move an appointment to a new time or provider,' and it scopes the operation to exactly one appointment. It also carves out scope explicitly ('It does not change the price'), which keeps it distinct from booking or payment-related siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context and prerequisites: moving to another team member requires calendar access to that person, and the price is handled at checkout rather than here. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g. cancel/book appointment) that an agent should pick instead when the intent differs.

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