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

Annotations establish write + open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it changes the booking 'with the vendor', it 'reaches other people' so the user must confirm each call, confirmation can be toggled off, and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with app access. These are exactly the side-effect and auth details an agent needs.

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 and keeps eligibility, confirmation, and auth adjacent. There is mild redundancy between 'By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call', which costs it a point but does not obscure the intent.

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, the description covers the safety-relevant gaps annotations leave open: external/person-facing side effects, the default confirmation step, eligibility gating, and auth requirements. With no output schema the return shape is unspecified, but that is minor for a reschedule call.

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 the schema already documents date, order_id, and timeslot (including order_id sourced from list_bookings). The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a booking to another date or timeslot') with scope ('one order', 'date or timeslot'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like tiqets_cancel_booking and tiqets_get_booking. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only for products where Tiqets offers it; get_booking says so') and routes the agent to get_booking to verify eligibility. It does not explicitly name an alternative for bookings that cannot be rescheduled, so it falls just 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.