feegow_update_appointment_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (ESCRITA — altera dados), requires an environment variable, and uses PascalCase keys. This provides good behavioral transparency, though side effects or irreversible changes are not mentioned.

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 important supplementary info in brackets. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation itself, the required environment variable, and key naming convention. It is reasonably complete, though error handling or response details are absent.

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%, so the description adds minimal value over the schema. It mentions PascalCase keys, which is useful context but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Atualiza o status de um agendamento e insere uma nota' (updates appointment status and inserts a note). It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel or reschedule.

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 provides some guidance (PascalCase keys, requirement for FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_cancel_appointment or feegow_create_appointment. No exclusion or alternative hints are given.

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