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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious trait — that the change goes through the owner's approval — but leaves unanswered whether the call blocks or returns a pending state, and whether a rejected approval silently no-ops.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the approval caveat immediately after. Nothing redundant with the title.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description tells the agent what changes but not what comes back or how the approval-request state is represented, nor what happens when the target slot conflicts. The approval note is the key missing-behavior disclosure and partially compensates.

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 start_at formatting, notify_client default, and team_member_id defaults are all fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the team-member option; it adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields.

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') and resource ('appointment'), plus the two axes of change (start time, and optionally team member). This cleanly distinguishes it from cancel_appointment and create_appointment without needing to open 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 is only implied by the verb: an agent infers this is the tool for changing an existing appointment's time. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over cancel + create, nor any stated precondition (e.g. appointment must not be cancelled/completed) for calling it.

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