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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top with the customer-notification side effect, the documented 100-requests-per-day cap, and the meaning of forcing a booking into a full slot. It omits what happens when the target slot conflicts for other bookings or what the response contains.

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-loaded with a 'WRITE:' marker, then purpose, then side effects, then parameter caution, then limit. Five short clauses with no filler; even the trailing 'PUT /bookings/reschedule' is a cheap confirmation of the mutation.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, notification behaviour, rate limit and the danger parameter, which is most of what an agent needs. It could still say whether a reschedule invalidates the old slot immediately or what is returned on success.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all four parameters with formats and provenance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds intent-level meaning beyond the schema's mechanical 'Force the slot even if unavailable' by framing override as an escalation that requires explicit user consent.

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?

Names a specific verb (move/reschedule) plus the resource (a booking or a subset of its customers) and the destination (a new time slot). This is clearly distinct from the sibling write tools appointo_create_booking, appointo_cancel_booking and appointo_update_booking_buffers 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?

Gives an explicit conditional rule for the risky path: 'override=true... leave it off unless the user explicitly asked for it', which tells the agent when NOT to use a capability. It does not discuss the obvious alternative of cancelling and re-creating, so it stops short of naming an alternative tool.

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