notion_update_appointment

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields change') and the return shape ('JSON dict of the updated appointment'). It does not address null-clearing semantics or external side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence carries the core purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, with no redundant prose or repetition of schema contents.

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?

Given a rich input schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides the essential invocation context: the source of notion_id, partial-update semantics, and the return format. It is slightly thin on clearing-field behavior (null vs omitted), but this does not block correct use for the common update case.

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?

The input schema provides detailed field descriptions for each updateable property, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds value by identifying the required notion_id source ('from notion_get_appointments') and by stating that any fields may be updated selectively, which clarifies the optional-parameter contract.

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 states a specific action—'Update fields on an existing Notion appointment'—with a clear resource and scope. 'Only provided fields change' differentiates it from create and get operations, and 'Notion' distinguishes it from Google Calendar siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description tells the agent to get notion_id from notion_get_appointments, which signals a prerequisite, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over notion_create_appointment, notion_update_task, or gcal_update_event. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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