updateAppointment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation action ('update') without mentioning side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or implications for related data. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It essentially restates the tool name and does not provide any structural breakdown or key highlights.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), a one-line description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, how parameters interact, or any behavioral context needed to safely invoke the tool.

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 100% for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents parameter names and brief descriptions, which is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 clearly identifies the action ('update') and resource ('appointment'), and implies a distinction from the sibling addAppointment. However, it lacks any detail about which fields or aspects of the appointment can be updated, so it does not fully distinguish from other update tools.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like addAppointment or getStaffAppointments. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario descriptions.

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