reschedule_appointment

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

Beyond the supplied annotations, the description discloses real side effects: connected calendars are updated, an appointment.rescheduled event fires, and the customer is DM'd when the booking originated in a conversation. It also names both error responses with their condition, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a destructive 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?

The core action and its precondition are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by side effects and then error codes in a tight sequence. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the trigger condition, the slot-availability check, downstream effects, and failure modes. What remains unstated is whether notification is skipped for non-conversation bookings and what the success response contains, though the annotations already signal the mutation profile.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the date pattern and the HH:MM/24-hour/timezone rule for time. The description only mentions 'a new date and time' generically and adds no meaning about the id parameter or validation behavior, so it operates at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Reschedule an appointment') and elaborates the exact effect: moving a pending or confirmed appointment to a new date/time. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_appointment, book_appointment, or cancel_appointment, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for use ('pending or confirmed') and reveals the failure route for anything else via 409 not_active, plus the slot-check behavior. What is missing is explicit routing guidance versus update_appointment or book_appointment when the caller is unsure which mutation to pick.

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