Update appointment notes

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is a replacement, not an append, and warns that retained existing text must be included. This adds meaningful behavioral context on top of the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying exactly what gets overwritten. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with the critical replacement caveat immediately after. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The tool is simple: two required parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description, combined with annotations, provides all essential operational details — what the tool does, what the note parameter must contain, and that the update is destructive and non-idempotent. No significant gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by defining note as the full replacement content and emphasizing that existing text must be carried over. appointmentId is not described, but its property name and the tool context make its role obvious. For only two simple string parameters, this is adequate semantic guidance.

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 ('Replace'), a clear resource ('host-side note on an appointment'), and the intended content ('call preparation or an outcome summary'). This makes the tool easy to distinguish from appointment scheduling, cancellation, or transcription tools. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: when the host-side appointment note should be replaced with preparation or outcome text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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