Reschedule appointment

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

Beyond destructiveHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the crucial non-obvious behaviors: all services shift by the same offset with lengths and prices preserved, team_member_id reassigns every service, and notify_client=true (default) sends a client message while false moves it quietly. Refusal on cancelled/completed/no-show is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then the notification default, then the refusal conditions. No filler and no repetition of schema text.

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?

With no output schema, the description never indicates what comes back after a reschedule (updated appointment, confirmation, error shape), which is the one remaining gap. Everything an agent needs to decide, prepare inputs, and anticipate side effects is otherwise present.

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; the description still adds meaning the schema lacks by explaining that start_at is the first service's start and that all remaining services are shifted relative to it, and that team_member_id applies to every service rather than one. It does not clarify timezone conversion, which is left entirely to 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 ('Move an appointment to a new start time') plus the optional scope ('optionally to another team member'), which cleanly separates it from create_appointment and cancel_appointment in the sibling list. The added sentence about shifting all services makes the operation concrete.

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 when-not guidance: 'Cancelled, completed and no-show appointments are refused,' and equivalences the agent can reason from ('as Reschedule in the appointment drawer does'). It never names a sibling alternative for the refusal cases (e.g. create_appointment for a new booking), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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