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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: the move overwrites the current time, Lunacal emails the attendee as a side effect, and user confirmation is required. It does not explain what happens to optional fields or how failures surface, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite flow, then the side effect, then the confirmation guardrail. Nothing repeated from the schema or annotations, and no filler.

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 14-parameter destructive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the primary happy path well. It is silent on the optional parameters, on whether guest/location/metadata changes propagate, and on what the tool returns, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent handling a real reschedule.

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 only 14% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It does identify the key inputs, rescheduleUid sourced from list_bookings, eventTypeId, start/time, name, and email, but leaves eight optional parameters (end, notes, guests, language, location, metadata, rescheduleReason, additionalResponses) entirely unexplained, including which affect the attendee notification.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move an existing booking to a new start time.' That is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like cancel_booking and create_booking. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call find_available_slots with rescheduleUid first, obtain the booking uid from list_bookings, then call this tool. It also states a hard usage gate, 'Confirm with the user before calling,' which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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