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 covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is atomic/all-or-nothing ('the original booking stays intact if the new time cannot be reserved') and requires an approval gate. It does not discuss failure modes beyond that or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first, the prerequisite source second, and the safety guarantee last. Every sentence adds information.

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, the description covers the approval requirement, token-based authorization, and rollback semantics; return values need no explanation because an output schema exists. The only residual gap is that 'reason' and 'confirmed' remain unexplained at 0% schema coverage.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain 'token' (private manage token) and 'slotId' (a fresh slot from list_available_times), but 'reason' and 'confirmed' are never addressed directly — approval is implied before confirmation, but the required confirmed=true flag is left to the schema's const.

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?

Precise verb+resource ('Move a booking'), and it identifies the two key inputs as its basis: the private manage token and a slot ID sourced from list_available_times. An agent can distinguish this from cancel_booking or preview_booking 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?

It routes the agent to list_available_times as the source of valid slot IDs and mandates 'Ask for explicit approval first', which is real workflow guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer preview_booking or other siblings, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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