tebra_update_appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be changed'), which is a key feature, but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying the core purpose and a critical behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks explanation of return values, error handling, or the effect of omitting optional fields (e.g., cancellationReason triggers cancellation?). For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, more context is needed for safe use.

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% with each parameter having its own description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing appointment in Tebra' and emphasizes partial update via 'Only provided fields will be changed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tebra_create_appointment and tebra_delete_appointment.

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?

While the description indicates it is for updating appointments, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like tebra_get_appointment_detail for checking status before updating.

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