updateAppointment

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals a critical behavioral constraint: the API returns an error unless both start and end are supplied on every update. This goes beyond the schema requirements and informs the agent of a non-obvious failure mode, though other behaviors like permissions or idempotency are not covered.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it easy for the agent to parse and act on.

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 10 parameters, a non-obvious API requirement (start/end mandatory on all updates), and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It alerts the agent to a common error and suggests a remedial action (refetch with getAppointment). Missing details like response format or other constraints, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50% (5 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant semantic context by highlighting that start and end are effectively required despite not being in the schema's required list, and by recommending a workflow to obtain those values. This compensates for the schema's lack of completeness on these critical parameters.

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 'Update an appointment.' as the verb+resource pair, and the additional context about FUB requiring start/end on every update distinguishes it from a typical partial-update tool, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly advises to refetch with getAppointment if only the id is available, and notes that start and end are required on every update. This provides definite usage context, though it does not discuss alternatives for other scenarios beyond the immediate requirement.

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