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 risk profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the side effect (a note is appended to the agenda) and the underlying endpoint. It doesn't discuss reversibility of a status change, but the destructive hint carries that.

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, all front-loaded: operation type first, then the status-id source, then the sibling routing. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a write tool this is sufficient: the mutation, its side effect, the id lookup path and the sibling boundaries are all stated, and annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the two undocumented params are appointment_id and status_id; the description compensates for status_id by pointing to feegow_list_appointment_statuses as the source of valid ids. notes and arrival_time are already documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is only appointment_id, which is self-evident.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('WRITE: sets an appointment's status') and enumerates concrete status examples (confirmed, waiting, attended, no-show). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the cancel and reschedule siblings, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

States the use case (changing status/adding an agenda note) and names the alternatives with the condition that selects them: 'To cancel or move an appointment use the cancel/reschedule tools.' It also routes to feegow_list_appointment_statuses for valid ids, closing the main usage gap.

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