Update an appointment

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that only provided fields are changed and that the `appointments:write` scope is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the partial-update rule follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter update tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of many fields, the status transitions, or what happens after the update. While the partial-updateand scope notes are helpful, the overall context is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It broadly hints at 'reschedule' and 'annotate', which maps to date_time and notes, but it does not explain status, lead_id, agent_id, client_name, phone_number, or duration_minutes. This leaves several parameters ambiguous for an agent.

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 or annotate an appointment' clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list siblings. The partial-update clarification ('Only the fields you send are changed') adds concrete scope.

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 clear contextual usage: use this tool to reschedule or annotate an existing appointment, and the partial-update note tells the agent how to use it effectively. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough against sibling tools.

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