Reschedule appointment

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), it discloses several behaviors an agent could not infer: all services shift by the same amount, a dry-run slot check may refuse the move, the client is silent unless notify_client is set, and the server may reject the appointment outright. These are exactly the mutation-side traits annotations can't express.

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 the mechanics and caveats. Each sentence carries information (service shifting, dry run, notification, refusal), though the parenthetical about get_appointment is slightly compressed at the cost of readability.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main risks (busy slot refusal, immutability escapes, silent client) well enough to call it safely. It doesn't say what a successful response contains, but that gap is minor given the tool's shape.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the field docs: 'start' governs the first service and all others shift in lockstep, and notify_client's side effect is characterized behaviorally rather than just 'tell the client'. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Move an appointment to a new start time') and adds the optional staff reassignment, which clearly separates it from create_appointment and cancel_appointment. No ambiguity about what the tool achieves.

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 states real usage conditions: the dry run checks the new slot, a busy slot is refused, the client is only notified via notify_client, and appointments that can no longer be changed are rejected (discoverable via get_appointment). It doesn't explicitly contrast with cancel_appointment or create_appointment as alternatives, keeping 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.