record_appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this by stating it records 'locally' and does not book or contact anyone, which tells the agent there are no external side effects. It also discloses the input contract for time (ISO local time plus IANA zone or explicit offset), which is behaviorally relevant. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate or conflicting entries.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/scope first, then the time-format contract, then the exclusion. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 7-parameter write tool the definition leaves real gaps: which profile_id to pass, how the timezone parameter resolves against an offset in starts_at, and default title 'Termin' semantics are all unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it clarifies the critical, non-obvious format of starts_at (ISO local time with either an IANA zone or an explicit offset). The other six parameters — including the required profile_id and the interaction between the separate timezone parameter (default Europe/Berlin) and an offset embedded in starts_at — are left entirely to the bare 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Record a ... appointment') and pins the scope with 'locally', which separates it from network-facing siblings like draft_enquiry or log_contact. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_appointment, list_appointments, or export_appointment, so an agent must infer the create-vs-modify-vs-list split.

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?

The phrase 'user-arranged appointment' implies the use case (the user already made the appointment; the tool just stores it) and 'Does not book/contact anyone' gives one clear exclusion. However, no sibling is named as the alternative for booking, editing, or listing, so the when-to-use-vs-what guidance is only implied.

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