Reschedule booking

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: arrival time and price are preserved, the response matches get_booking, an invalid date returns the allowed-date list, one-time bookings are rejected, and no notification is sent unless notify is true. It also discloses the fee-charging-store refusal, which is operationally important 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense supporting facts in short clauses: behavior, error case, eligibility, notification, and fee exception. No sentence is redundant.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return value ('the booking comes back as get_booking shows it') and covers the significant failure modes and side effects. For a mutation tool with three parameters, nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the date constraint and the notify default ('Nobody is told unless notify is true'), but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 precise verb and resource ('Postpone a visit of a recurring booking') plus the scope restriction (must move to a later visit date in the schedule). This is clearly distinct from siblings like cancel_booking, create_booking, or get_booking, and an agent can select it without opening the 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 clear conditions and exclusions: only recurring bookings, only dates already in the schedule, and fee-charging stores must use the panel instead. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., cancel_booking or create_booking) for the cases it rejects, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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