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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: required-field semantics, immutable fields, and a state-transition rule (no Confirmed → WaitingConfirmation). It does not cover auth requirements, notification defaults, or the response shape, so it is solid but not exhaustive for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutable fields and immediacy of the required params. Slight redundancy with the schema's required list and the API path suffix, but 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-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers required params, immutability, and state rules adequately. Missing permission/auth notes and what a successful update returns, which are minor given no output schema exists.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that UtcDateTime must be sent even when unchanged ('send the current time to keep it') and by noting fields that exist in the API but not the schema (client, practitioner) as immutable.

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 (change/update) and resource (appointment) plus the exact mutable fields: time, service, location, status, reminder type. Easily distinguished from siblings like intakeq_create_appointment, intakeq_cancel_appointment, and intakeq_get_appointment.

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 strong operational guidance: Id and UtcDateTime are required, send the current time to keep it, and include only fields being changed. It also states exclusions (client/practitioner cannot be changed; Confirmed cannot revert to WaitingConfirmation), but never explicitly routes to siblings such as cancel or create when this tool is the wrong choice.

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