Update appointment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') and gives status transition examples, which are not in the schema enum formatting but reflect the valid enum values. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous wording. It delivers the core action and a key behavioral constraint efficiently.

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?

The description, combined with schema and annotations, provides enough for basic invocation: appointmentId is required (from schema), date-time formats are in schema, status enum is in schema, and partial update semantics are in description. However, it omits the updatable title field and fails to mention any response or error handling, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 only 40%; endTime and startTime have descriptions but title, appointmentId, and appointmentStatus do not. The description refers to 'time' and 'status' but does not clarify that `title` is also updatable, nor does it explain the required `appointmentId` parameter. The 'Only provided fields are changed' hint is helpful but insufficient to fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('appointment'), and specifies the scope ('time or status') with examples. It also adds 'Only provided fields are changed' which conveys partial update semantics. However, it omits the 'title' field from the description, which is present in the schema, making the scope slightly under-specified.

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 description implies this tool is for modifying existing appointments ('Update an appointment's time or status'), and 'Only provided fields are changed' implies a partial update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over create/delete alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing appointmentId.

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