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

Unlike the annotations, which only carry the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: omitted fields are preserved, a new title overwrites the old, summary/transcript are immutable, and nothing is deleted (addressing the destructiveHint concern). This is genuinely useful beyond structured data.

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 tight paragraph, front-loaded with the actions, then preservation semantics, then the usage gate. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description fully covers the mutation scope, preservation behavior, and preconditions for a six-param update 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 coverage is 50%, so the description compensates by clarifying that title replaces existing value, folder_id draws ids from list_folders, and remove_from_folder takes the meeting out. It adds meaning for most of the six params, though it doesn't explain tag array limits or remove_tags semantics in detail.

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 names specific verbs and resources (rename a meeting, add/remove tags, move into/out of a folder), clearly scoping the tool's mutations. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_meeting or update_task without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: 'Call it only when the user asked for this change.' It also points to list_folders for folder ids. However, it does not name alternative tools or conditions for when-not to use it beyond that single gate.

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