conduyt_appointment_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key non-obvious effect: moving the contact's most recently updated open deal according to appointmentOutcomeStages. It also enumerates failure reasons (no_contact, no_deal, no_mapping, already_there, stage_move_failed), which is strong transparency. It does not mention permission requirements or reversibility, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the action and side effects, then the return shape and reason codes. It is dense but every clause adds useful information; it could be split for readability, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return object and reason codes. It gives enough to call the tool correctly and interpret partial failures. Missing details such as permission requirements or explicit undo routing are minor for this complexity level.

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 schema fully documents id, outcome, startTime, and endTime, including the rescheduled semantics. The description repeats the common outcome values but omits 'rescheduled' from its list, while the schema includes it; this is a minor inconsistency rather than an error, and the schema does the heavy lifting. 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 states a specific verb (record), resource (appointment outcome), and the full side-effect chain: updating status plus moving the contact's most recently updated open deal to a mapped stage. The 'in one action' framing distinguishes this from generic update or multi-step alternatives, so an agent can identify it without opening siblings.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: recording an outcome (completed, no_show, cancelled) with automatic deal-stage movement. It does not explicitly name when to avoid it or point to alternatives such as conduyt_appointment_outcome_undo or conduyt_update_appointment, but the combined-action framing gives sufficient selection guidance.

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