Schedule appointment

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

Annotations already flag mutation, external side effects, destructiveHint, and non-idempotency; the description adds concrete behavior beyond that: each named staff member gets a scheduled notice, an Unassigned or Assigned job becomes Scheduled, and email_customer sends the customer confirmation with customer_message. It still does not disclose duplicate-call behavior or appointment conflict handling.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and key side effects. It is slightly redundant, since the opening mentions optionally emailing the customer and the second paragraph repeats that email_customer sends the confirmation, but it remains efficient overall.

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 the important invocation context: defaults, staff expansion, status transition, and external email side effects. It leaves response shape and conflict/idempotency behavior unstated, but those are secondary for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond schema text: staff are named by full name, default to the signed-in user, and receive one appointment each; email_customer controls the customer confirmation; customer_message is included in that email.

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: 'Book a job appointment on the Scheduler for staff.' It clearly distinguishes the action from viewing siblings like list_appointments and from status-only changes like update_job_status by describing start-to-end booking and staff assignment.

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?

The description gives context and defaults, including that staff defaults to the signed-in user and that email_customer is optional. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as update_job_status or list_appointments, nor when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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