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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say not-read-only, not-destructive, open-world). It discloses that the customer and provider are emailed unless rescheduled-appointment notifications are off in Settings, that each call is confirmed by default and that toggle can be disabled, that it reaches other people, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a side-effecting 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?

The email behavior is stated twice ('The customer is emailed unless you turned it off' and then the fuller Settings > Notifications sentence), and the 'Setmore:' prefix duplicates the title. Core mutation semantics are front-loaded, but a redundant sentence and repeated branding waste space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden, and it covers side effects, notification behavior, confirmation default and auth requirements well for a 3-parameter mutation. It stops short of describing what the call returns or how to recover from a failed reschedule, which a fully complete definition would mention.

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 schema already documents appointment_id, start and staff_id. The description only re-states that start time and team member are the mutable fields, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's 'ISO 8601 with time zone' and 'Appointment ID from list_appointments'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource ('Move an appointment to a new time or team member') and scopes the operation precisely ('Changes the start time, the team member, or both for one appointment'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like setmore_cancel_appointment and setmore_create_appointment without opening any 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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit — it's a reschedule tool, so you use it to move an existing appointment. The confirmation guidance ('By default you confirm each call... confirm with the user before each call') is about approval workflow, not about choosing this tool over alternatives such as cancel-then-recreate, and no sibling is named.

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