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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare a non-read, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description discloses side effects (a confirmation is sent for the changed appointment), a scope limitation (services stay the same), a human-in-the-loop confirmation requirement, and an auth requirement (API key with app access). The remaining gap is that it doesn't say what happens if the new slot is unavailable.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (unchanged services, confirmation behavior, call confirmation, auth). Slightly repetitive in the opening two sentences ('Move...' then 'Moves one appointment...').

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 the important operational facts an agent needs: what changes, what stays the same, the notification side effect, the confirmation policy, and the auth requirement. It lacks a note on failure modes (e.g., slot conflicts), keeping it short of full completeness.

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 appointment_id, start, and staff_id are already documented with their formats and defaults. The description only restates that you can change time and/or employee, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (an appointment) plus the exact dimensions that can change: start time, employee, or both. Clear and unambiguous, though it never names the sibling tools (book_appointment, cancel_appointment) it should be distinguished from.

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?

Provides useful context (services stay the same, confirmation is sent) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the other Meevo scheduling tools like book_appointment or cancel_appointment. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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