ghl_update_appointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, return values, or constraints on status transitions. As a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. However, it sacrifices important usage and behavioral details for brevity, so it is concise but not optimally informative.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics beyond vague hints, or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer critical information from elsewhere.

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 description coverage is only 25%, and the description only loosely groups some parameters (startTime/endTime for rescheduling, appointmentStatus for status, notes for notes). It does not clarify ambiguous fields like toNotify, calendarId, or title, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for 8 parameters.

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 action 'Update an existing appointment' and lists the specific types of updates (reschedule, change status, update notes), making it easy to distinguish from create, get, and delete siblings.

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 phrase 'existing appointment' implies the tool is for updating already-created appointments, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like ghl_create_appointment or ghl_delete_calendar_event. Usage context is implied rather than clearly spelled out.

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