update_appointment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'Update an existing appointment'. It doesn't mention whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if the eventId doesn't exist, any permission requirements, or side effects like notifications. The term 'existing' hints at a precondition but nothing more.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though not enough to be penalized heavily.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how the fields interact, whether all fields are optional after specifying eventId, or what the expected outcome or response is. The schema covers parameter names but not behavioral context.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (appointment), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete/get appointment tools. However, it provides no detail about what aspects can be updated, relying entirely on the schema for that context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_appointment or delete_appointment, nor any prerequisites such as the appointment needing to exist. The description is purely declarative with no contextual direction.

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