add_appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive local write. The description confirms a create/record action but adds no behavioral detail such as what is persisted, whether duplicates are detected, or auth/context requirements. The consequence note is domain flavor rather than tool behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical German terms largely duplicate the schema enum, and the second sentence is contextual rather than operational, but there is little waste overall.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for an 8-parameter creation tool with 50% parameter coverage, the description leaves an agent without enough detail on how to populate the optional fields or what happens on success, so it is only marginally complete.

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 only 50%, yet the description adds essentially nothing about parameters. The German kind list merely restates the enum values already present in the schema, and the six other parameters (bring, notes, purpose, location, with_whom, invitation_date) receive no clarification, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Record an appointment') and enumerates the appointment kinds, so an agent immediately knows this creates a new appointment record. It is distinguishable from list_appointments and update_appointment by the 'record/add' semantics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The sentence about consequences of missing an invitation is motivational domain context, not routing guidance telling the agent when to prefer this tool over update_appointment or list_appointments.

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