update_appointment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: detail edits propagate to connected calendars, a cancelled status deletes the calendar event, and the appointment.cancelled event fires. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, which matters for a partial-update 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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the calendar-push/cancelled behavior and the reschedule pointer are each stated twice in near-identical wording, wasting roughly a third of the text. Trimming the duplicated clauses would lose no information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects and event emission well. However, with 10 parameters at 10% schema coverage and nested objects, an agent still lacks guidance on what most fields mean or how partial updates treat omitted values.

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 10% across 10 parameters, including nested customer and location objects, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the status field gets behavioral context (cancelled removes the calendar event); cost, notes, timezone, service_type, vehicle_info, duration_minutes, and the nested objects are never explained. "Send only what changes" is the sole semantic hint about the update model.

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 ("Update an appointment") and scopes it to detail and/or status edits via the portal's edit form. It explicitly distinguishes itself from reschedule_appointment, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear operating rule ("Send only what changes") and an explicit alternative for time changes ("To move the time, use reschedule_appointment"). It does not address the cancel_appointment sibling, even though setting status to cancelled overlaps with that tool, leaving one routing ambiguity.

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