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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent; the description adds that it does not alter price or services, requires explicit customer confirmation, and needs auth via customer_grant or a signed-in customer. It could say more about what happens to the original slot, but it substantially supplements the annotation profile.

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 with no filler; the purpose, constraints, confirmation step, and auth requirement are packed in without repetition. The most important operation is front-loaded.

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?

The essentials for a safe call are present: prerequisites, auth requirements, idempotency, and a confirmation gate before mutation. With no output schema, a sentence about the response or returned booking would round it out, but this is not critical for selection and invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden: it explains where slot_id comes from, that booking_reference drives the availability query, why idempotency_key is needed, and the customer_grant/session auth alternative. It does not explicitly name session_id or describe grant format, but the core semantics are present.

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?

Description names a specific operation: moving a verified customer's booking to a new slot_id, and it anchors slot_id to check_availability(booking_reference). It also draws a boundary against price/service changes, making the scope distinguishable from create_booking and cancel_booking.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: obtain slot_id from check_availability before calling, and an interaction rule: confirm the new time with the customer first. It also excludes price/service changes, so an agent knows this tool is not for those requests.

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