Update Appointment Group

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint=trueাফ so the description does not need to restate mutability. The description adds value by explaining the effect of publish (making a draft visible) and that new_appointments adds slots. It doesn't disclose potential irreversible consequences (e.g., publishing cannot be undone) or side effects, but given the annotation already flags destructiveness, the added state-transition detail is meaningful. A solid 4.

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 sentences, tightly focused on the two primary use cases (publishing and adding slots). It front-loads the core action ('Update an appointment group') and then gives imperative guidance. No fluff or redundancy. Efficient and scannable.

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?

As an update tool with destructive potential (annotated destructiveHint=true), the description could be more explicit about the side effects of publishing (e.g., whether it's irreversible, what 'visible' implies) and whether omitted fields are cleared or left unchanged. The schema covers parameter types but not update semantics. The description partially compensates by illustrating publish and append behaviors, but doesn't cover all possible update scenarios or return values. Lacks a clear statement of what the agent can expect after calling it.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'new_appointments' appends time slots (rather than replacing existing ones) and that 'publish' makes a draft visible. This is genuinely useful because the schema only lists types and basic descriptions. It doesn't explain every parameter but does enhance understanding of two key ones, so above 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 states 'Update an appointment group' — a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from other update tools (e.g., update_course, update_assignment), but the resource is unambiguousamen. It names the key actions (publish, add slots) which helps identify scope, though it could be more explicit about the full set of updatable fields (title, description, location). Not a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling appointment tools or create_appointment_group.

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?

Provides scenario-based guidance: 'Use publish=true to make a draft group visible' and 'add new time slots via new_appointments.' This tells the agent when to use these specific parameters)Skip. However, it doesn't explicitly tell when to use this tool over other update tools or when to avoid it (e.g., if only editing non-published fields). Some implicit guidance but no exclusions.

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