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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond that: the old slot is released, the patient may be notified per clinic settings, and the underlying endpoint is POST /appoints/reschedule. What's missing is any note on failure recovery or what happens to prior notes when a reschedule fails.

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 WRITE marker and the core mutation, followed by the prerequisite and the side effect. 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?

With no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the mutation semantics, the required reason source, and the notification side effect – enough for an agent to invoke it safely. It leaves the notes parameter and the return shape unexplained, a minor gap for a well-annotated tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents date format, time format, and reason_id provenance. The description only reinforces the reason_id requirement and doesn't explain the optional notes parameter or how required fields interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("moves an existing appointment to a new date and time") and immediately clarifies the distinguishing behavior: "the old slot is released." This clearly separates it from create_appointment and cancel_appointment among the siblings.

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 clear usage context by stating it operates on an existing appointment and requires a reason id sourced from feegow_list_appointment_reasons, naming that sibling explicitly. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. cancel vs reschedule for a cancelled slot), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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