reschedule_booking

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: the attendee is emailed, the 24h reminder is re-armed, and the booking.rescheduled integration event fires. It also exposes failure modes such as a taken slot or another active booking, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence each for the core purpose, prerequisite workflow, side effects, and failure conditions. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Covers the key elements an agent needs: what the tool does, who may use it, how to obtain a valid parameter, what side effects occur, and when it will fail. Since an output schema exists, omitting the return shape is acceptable.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters well, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds value by specifying the proper workflow dependency: call get_booking_availability with this bookingId first and select startAt from its slots, which clarifies how the two parameters relate.

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 action and object: 'Move a confirmed booking of the current team to a different time, as the organiser.' It also adds role and state constraints ('confirmed', 'scheduled', 'organiser') that make it clearly distinct from sibling tools like review_booking or update_booking_status.

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 instructs the agent to first call get_booking_availability with the bookingId and pick a startAt from its slots, and states the rejection conditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to prefer instead, but the prerequisite workflow and operational constraints are clearly conveyed.

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