updateAppointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a critical FUB requirement (start and end must be provided on every update) and the exact error message returned otherwise. This goes beyond the schema and warns of a non-obvious constraint.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second packs crucial usage and behavioral guidance. No fluff, every word earns its place, and the critical warning is front and center.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description covers the main trap (start/end requirement) and the safe usage pattern (refetch first). It omits other possible constraints or return-value details, but the essential operational knowledge is provided.

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 50%, and the description significantly compensates by stating that `start` and `end` are effectively required despite being optional in the schema. It also implies the need to fetch current values, adding semantic meaning to the parameters beyond their descriptions.

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 'Update an appointment' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateAppointmentType or updateCall, leaving no ambiguity about what entity it modifies.

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?

The description gives a clear, actionable prerequisite: 'Refetch with getAppointment first if you only have the id.' This tells the agent when and how to prepare. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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