Reschedule or edit a local appointment record, including time, status, location, duration, and notes; does not notify the practice.
Reschedule or update a local appointment record. Does not notify the practice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| starts_at | No | ||
| appointment_id | Yes | ||
| duration_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the change is confined to a local record and no external party (the practice) is alerted. It still omits partial-update semantics (are omitted fields left unchanged?) and permission requirements, so not a 5.
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 short sentences with zero padding; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the caveat follows. Every clause carries information.
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, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description does not tell the agent how the optional fields behave or what a successful update implies.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds almost nothing: 'reschedule' faintly implies starts_at/duration, but status, notes, location, and timezone go unmentioned. Patch-style semantics (only appointment_id is required, everything else defaults to null) are never explained.
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+resource ('update a local appointment record') and clarifies the operation is a local record change. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like record_appointment or list_appointments, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.
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 (e.g., appointment must exist), and no alternatives named. 'Does not notify the practice' hints at the boundary between this and any notification/sync path, but that is inference, not stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.