update_appointment_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action 'Update' and provides a PUT path. It does not describe partial versus full update behavior, error cases, auth requirements, side effects, or reversibility.

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 short sentence plus an endpoint with no fluff or repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded and compact, but it is so terse that it contributes little beyond the purpose and endpoint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, five parameters including nested objects, and a large sibling family, this description is incomplete. It omits update semantics, error behavior, prerequisites, and any guidance about what the caller should expect.

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 80%, so the schema already documents name, extraBody, extraQuery, and orderWeight. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; the required id field remains undocumented in both the schema and description, but the high coverage baseline keeps this at 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Update an appointment outcome,' and the endpoint clarifies the target operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_appointment_outcome or get_appointment_outcome, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 such as create_appointment_outcome or get_appointment_outcome, nor any mention that an existing outcome id is required. The only hint is the verb 'Update,' which leaves selection decisions to inference.

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