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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: overlapping worker conflicts are returned, and moving the visit re-plans the appointment reminder. It stops short of stating whether the customer is notified of a moved visit, what happens when a conflict is returned (rejection vs warning), or whether unspecified fields are left untouched — gaps that matter for a scheduling mutation.

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, leading with the primary capability and following with the two consequences. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source on what comes back, and it mentions conflicts only in passing without describing their shape. It also omits whether partial updates are supported (all fields except visit_id are optional) and any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only 17%, so the description does real work by enumerating the mutable fields (title, notes, arrival window, plus the movement implied by starts_at/ends_at), which signals the boundaries of what can be updated. However, it adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. that arrival_window_minutes is bounded and defaults to the shop rule) and leaves starts_at/ends_at semantics to inference.

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: 'Move a visit or change its title, notes or arrival window.' An agent can distinguish it from visits_assign, visits_cancel, or visits_setPriority without opening the schema. It is not quite a 5 because 'move' is left implicit as to which fields it maps to, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list — an agent can infer it is for edits to an existing visit rather than assignment or cancellation — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as visits_assign for worker changes. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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