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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses side effects (cancelling via visits.cancel, moving via visits.update with the preserved duration fallback), customer-visible note text, the approval-rule path where the request stays open and an approval id is returned, and the authorization requirement ('Owner or office only'). This is unusually complete 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, then branch semantics, then the apply edge case, then side effects and permission. Every sentence supplies actionable information, though the run-on sequencing with parentheticals makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers branch behavior, side effects, permissions, and the approval-hold outcome (including what comes back). Return-format detail is correctly left to the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, yet the description explains decision (accept vs decline behavior), apply (accept without applying), starts_at/ends_at (destination time and duration fallback), and note (visible to the customer on their hub). Only change_request_id is left implicit via 'a customer's request', which is a minor omission against otherwise near-total compensation for the schema gap.

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: answering a customer's request to move or cancel a visit. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like visits_changeRequests (listing) or visits_update (direct editing), and it names the downstream tools it triggers (visits.cancel, visits.update).

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?

Explicitly defines both branches of the decision enum ('decline leaves the visit as it is', 'accept on a cancel request cancels the visit') and the exceptional path ('Pass apply false to mark it accepted without changing the visit (you already moved it)'). It also discloses the escalation condition when a shop approval rule holds the change, leaving little to inference.

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