Update Appointment Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral scope 'only the status' and 'lighter', which clarifies that this operation does not modify other appointment fields. No contradiction with annotations, and the added context is meaningful.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update only the status') and then adds the sibling contrast. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no nested objects), full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return value or response behavior, but that is not critical for this simple update operation.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the complete enum for appointmentStatus. The description only repeats a few example values and does not add new semantic details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb and resource ('Update only the status of an appointment') and gives concrete example statuses. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tebra_update_appointment by calling itself 'Lighter than' that tool, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicitly names the alternative tebra_update_appointment and specifies the intended use case: 'use for check-in/check-out workflows.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when NOT to use it (when more than status needs updating).

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