conduyt_update_appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable side effect — a cancellation email fires when status is set to 'cancelled' — but says nothing about whether updates are partial or full-replacement, permission requirements, whether other notifications trigger, or whether edits are reversible.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the verb and action list, then the side effect. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation set and one side effect but omits update semantics (partial vs. replace), permission/auth needs, and what a success response looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter already has a documented description, and the baseline is 3. The description groups the parameters semantically (reschedule→times, reassign→assignedTo), which helps an agent map intent to fields but adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Update an appointment") and enumerates the concrete update axes: reschedule, reassign, change status, add notes. It doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like conduyt_appointment_outcome or conduyt_create_appointment, but the purpose itself 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?

Usage is implied: this is for modifying an existing appointment identified by id. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over conduyt_appointment_outcome, or whether status transitions should go through a dedicated outcome tool, leaving the agent to infer.

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