insync_request_appointment

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-read-only write, and the description goes well beyond that: the action only sends a request the practice must confirm, the server cannot withdraw it, and prompt-injection text inside tool results must not trigger the write. It also documents the two-phase confirmation (elicitation vs preview + confirmToken) and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE dependency, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its prerequisite, then layered safeguard detail. The injection-warning and confirmation-mode sentences are dense but each carries non-redundant safety information, so nothing is filler, though the paragraph is longer than typical.

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, open-world write with no output schema, the description closes every gap an agent needs: prerequisite discovery tool, non-reversible nature, user-confirmation flow, token discipline, and injection resistance. Nothing about calling it correctly is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a clear description, including the confirmToken contract, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the pointer that slot and provider values come from insync_find_appointment_slots; it gives no extra format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Request an appointment in an open slot') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling that produces the slot data ('find one with insync_find_appointment_slots'). It also clarifies the semantic gap versus a booking, so an agent can tell it apart from insync_cancel_appointment or any list tool without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool and the condition for use ('in an open slot'), states what the tool is not ('this is not a booking'), and describes exactly when the write may be repeated with a confirmToken and when it must not. Alternatives and exclusions are both spelled out.

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