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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true, so the description is the main source of behavioral context. It usefully discloses that notes are replaced (existing notes lost) and that cancellation/rescheduling is out of scope, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility of state transitions, or side effects like notifications to the client.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the actionable content: capability first, exclusion second. Every clause earns its place, with 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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and what cannot, which is the bulk of what an agent needs. It stops short of noting authorization requirements or transition rules, but no structured field is available to carry that.

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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already does the heavy lifting for all three parameters. The description restates the state values and the replacement semantics of notes, adding confirmation but no new syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource (replace notes / move state on an appointment) and lists the exact target states, plus the underlying GraphQL mutation updateAppointment. It scopes itself by stating it does not cancel or reschedule, though it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 context is concrete: the parenthetical 'e.g. confirm, or check the client in' maps states to real workflows, and 'Does not cancel or reschedule' states an explicit non-use case. There is no named alternative tool to route to, which keeps it short of a 5.

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