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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that Mangomint's automated reschedule message fires only for client-portal changes, so notify_client=true must be set here; discloses the default per-call confirmation gate (and that it can be turned off); notes it reaches other people; and states the auth requirement (user's Cotlet API key with app access). This is rich behavioral context for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then behavior. Slight restatement between the first and second sentences ('Move an appointment...' / 'Moves one appointment to a new start'), but every sentence carries actionable information on notification, confirmation, and auth.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the effect, the notification nuance, the confirmation policy, the reach to other people, and the credential requirement.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: staff_id moves the appointment to another staff member 'as dragging it on the calendar does,' and it explains the practical rationale for notify_client rather than just restating its default.

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) and resource (appointment) with scope: it shifts one appointment to a new start and optionally to another staff member. This cleanly separates it from siblings like mangomint_book_appointment and mangomint_cancel_appointment.

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 operational context: default confirmation per call, option to disable it for this tool, and an explicit 'confirm with the user before each call' when the change reaches another person. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (cancel/book) for comparison, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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