Reschedule or edit a booking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding real context: required scopes, 'full_content' data sensitivity, the fact that a missing idempotency key is auto-generated, and that the call is rejected outright without confirm: true. It stops short of explaining what a reschedule does to downstream automations or calendar sync, which would be the remaining useful trait for a destructive booking mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by tightly scannable key:value operational lines with no filler. The only waste is the destructive/confirm sentence, which is duplicated nearly verbatim in the confirm parameter description in the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no coverage, and safety/auth/idempotency are all addressed. What is missing for a tool with this much nested-input complexity is any explanation of the body payload — an agent can invoke it safely but must guess how to actually express a reschedule versus a status edit.

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 67%, so the schema carries most of the documented parameters (confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, idempotencyKey all have descriptions). The description adds nothing about the nested body, and the core reschedule semantics — which of endAt/slotAt/timezone to set versus status for a status change — are left entirely to inference across eight undocumented body fields.

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 (reschedule/update a booking) and even gives the underlying operation (PATCH /api/bookings/{id}). However it never distinguishes itself from closely-named siblings such as luca_bookings_cancel or luca_reschedule_call, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which booking mutation is the right one.

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?

Operational prerequisites are spelled out (scopes, confirm: true, idempotency key, workspace override), but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over luca_bookings_cancel, luca_bookings_create, or luca_reschedule_call. Usage is implied by the PATCH endpoint rather than explicitly reasoned about.

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