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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and clarifies there is no scheduling side effect, though it does not discuss auth or reversibility.

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 core change is front-loaded and the reschedule exclusion is prominent. The explanation of why buyers refine their thinking is slightly illustrative, but no sentence is wasteful.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, partial updates, and the main alternative for a mutation tool with annotation and schema support. It omits return/error behavior, but with no output schema and high schema coverage this is adequate.

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 83%, so the schema already documents email, topic, background, session_type, and desired_outcome. The description restates the human meaning of the 'brief' fields but adds little parameter-level syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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: changes session type or brief fields on an existing booking. It explicitly excludes reschedule_booking, but does not distinguish itself from sibling update_booking, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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 an explicit when-to-use case (buyer refines their thinking after booking) and an explicit when-not case with an alternative (does not move the meeting — use reschedule_booking). The routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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