Create appointment

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

Substantially beyond the annotations: it discloses that the end time is derived from the service duration, that Booksy pre-checks staff availability, and that a busy slot is refused rather than double-booked. It also confirms dry_run saves nothing and returns saved=false. It omits any undo path, though a created appointment is reversible via cancel_appointment, and the destructiveHint=true annotation is not directly explained.

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 behaviour, then the dry-run caveat — good ordering with no filler. The opening two sentences overlap ('Book a client for one service at a start time' / 'Books one client card for one service'), which costs a little.

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 seven-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what gets created, how availability is enforced, notification behaviour, and the dry-run contract. What is missing is failure/edge handling (invalid client or service, permission requirements) and what the saved result looks like.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal semantic value, mainly the coupling between start and service duration and the cardinality of one client/one service. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource with tight scope: book one client, for one service, at one start time. An agent can distinguish it from cancel_appointment or reschedule_appointment by name, but the description never explicitly routes against those siblings.

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?

It gives real conditional guidance: use dry_run to check slot and price without saving, and add notify_client only when the client should get a confirmation. It never states exclusions (e.g. that existing bookings should go through reschedule_appointment instead) or prerequisites beyond pointing at list_staff/list_clients via the schema.

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