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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing real side effects — the calendar is modified and update emails may be sent unless suppressed — plus the underlying PUT endpoint. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether availability is re-validated, so it is strong but 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, front-loaded with the mutation verb and its side effects, then the API mapping. No filler or repetition; every clause carries 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effects and the required inputs' intent adequately. It could still note whether admin bypasses availability checks or what happens on a time conflict, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters including admin, noEmail and calendarID. The description only restates the new-time and optional-new-calendar concepts at a high level, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (reschedules) plus resource (existing appointment) and scope (new time, optionally new calendar), which cleanly separates it from siblings like acuity_cancel_appointment and acuity_create_appointment. The REST endpoint mapping reinforces exactly what operation is performed.

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?

The description makes the usage context unambiguous: this is for moving an already-existing appointment, not creating or cancelling one. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the intent is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the cancel or create siblings.

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