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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the atomic guarantee (if target slot is taken, user keeps current slot), no confirmation required, and that OAuth consent is pre-provisioned and should never be re-prompted. This enriches the bare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations with actionable details.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose and atomic guarantee. It includes necessary usage guidance and parameter formats. However, the phrase 'that atomic guarantee is the whole point of same-day move' is slightly redundant, and the 'REAL action:' prefix feels unnecessary. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 its complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: same-day vs different-day behavior (cross-referencing book), atomicity, consent/confirmation expectations, and parameter formats. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently addresses what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero per-parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by specifying formats: date (YYYY-MM-DD), from (HH:MM current), to (HH:MM new). It also explains that 'from' is the current slot and 'to' is the new one, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 tool moves the user's appointment to another free slot on the same day, with the key detail of atomicity. This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'book', which is explicitly mentioned for different-day moves.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this for same-day rescheduling, and use 'book' for different days. It also clarifies no confirmation is needed and that consent is already handled via OAuth, so the agent knows when and how to invoke the tool without hesitation.

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