conduyt_appointment_outcome_undo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the mutation's effects on both appointment status and deal stage, the critical guard that a manually changed stage is left alone, and that the response surfaces stageRestored and reason. It stops short of covering permission requirements or the error case where no outcome exists to undo.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the em-dash parenthetical carries the guard condition and response fields compactly. Every clause conveys operational information.

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 one-parameter undo mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the restored state, the conditional skip, and the response fields an agent needs to interpret. It leaves only minor gaps around permissions and the no-prior-outcome error path.

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?

Only one parameter (id, 'Appointment UUID') with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the id, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — undo the last outcome recorded on an appointment — and spells out the concrete effects (status reverts, deal stage reverts). An agent can tell this apart from the forward conduyt_appointment_outcome without opening either schema.

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 word 'Undo' plus 'the last outcome recorded' establishes when this applies: after an outcome was written to an appointment. It does not explicitly name conduyt_appointment_outcome as the alternative or spell out when-not to use it, but the context is clear and unambiguous.

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