update_appointment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and 'Update' is consistent with that, so no contradiction. The description adds the useful status vocabulary but never states partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared), nor any permission/auth requirements, which is the key behavioral fact for an 8-field mutation tool.

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: the action, the status options, and the notes capability are all stated without padding. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 explanation. However, for a mutation tool with 8 parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves several fields and the partial-update behavior undescribed, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 25% (just notes and starts_at), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the status enum by glossing 'wahrgenommen' as attended, but leaves abgesagt/verlegt/versaeumt unmapped and says nothing about purpose, location, bring, or with_whom, so it only partially closes the 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?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource ('Update an appointment') and enumerates the concrete status transitions (attended, cancelled, rescheduled, missed) plus note-taking, which cleanly separates it from add_appointment and list_appointments. It falls short of 5 only because it omits the other updatable fields (location, purpose, starts_at, bring, with_whom) that the schema exposes, so it understates the tool's scope.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is for modifying an existing appointment rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as add_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.