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

Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the context that the move is 'at no charge' and requires the original email. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on the old slot or mention any confirmation/rollback behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the deprecation notice, then states the core action, the key requirement, and the prerequisite step. Every sentence serves a clear purpose and no unnecessary wording is present.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, prerequisite, required credential, and deprecation context. It does not mention return values or confirmation behavior, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap. The deprecation context is well handled.

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?

The schema already describes email and new_slot_id well, and the description reinforces the requirement to use a slot_id from check_availability. However, order_id remains undocumented beyond its name, and the description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, the description offers marginal additional value.

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 clearly states the action (move a booking to a different slot) and resource (a booking), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the preferred sibling reschedule_session by framing itself as a deprecated alias. This is a specific verb+resource definition with strong sibling differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: prefer reschedule_session instead, call check_availability first to obtain a valid new_slot_id, and require the email matching the order. This clarifies exactly when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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