Schedule Appointment

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the intent to book an appointment; it does not disclose side effects, validation requirements, conflict handling, persistence, or any other observable behavior beyond 'book'.

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?

A single well-structured sentence includes the action, allowed appointment categories, and the target audience. Every part adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 mutation product with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves out expected results, potential failure modes, scheduling availability, and how duration interacts with the selected service type.

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 75%, so the schema handles most parameters. The description adds some semantic value by clarifying that the customer must already exist and by enumerating serviceType examples that match the schema's guidances.

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 uses a specific verb ('Book') and resource ('appointment'), names concrete appointment types, and scopes to existing customers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_support_ticket and create_task.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose a support ticket, how to validate an existing customer first, or any conditions that would rule out this tool.

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