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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and a title; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that, notably the immutable fields and the state-transition restriction that blocks Confirmed → WaitingConfirmation. It still does not disclose permission/auth requirements or defaults for notifications, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the rules an agent needs. Every clause carries information (required fields, partial-update convention, two constraints) 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key calling constraints (required fields, immutable fields, status restriction) and partially addresses update semantics. It omits auth requirements and mention of side effects like the SendClientEmailNotification default, leaving a minor gap.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that Id and UtcDateTime are required even when unchanged (send current time to keep it) and that only changed fields should be included. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 ('Change an appointment's time, service, location, status or reminder type') and enumerates exactly which fields can be modified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like intakeq_create_appointment, intakeq_cancel_appointment and intakeq_get_appointment. The reference to 'PUT /appointments' confirms the operation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: send the current time to keep it, include only fields being changed, and two exclusion rules (client/practitioner not changeable, Confirmed cannot revert to WaitingConfirmation). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., cancel vs update), so it falls just 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.