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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations don't cover: the consent attestation precondition and the fact that a durable operation receipt is returned, which points the agent to list_operations for follow-up.

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 filler; the consent precondition and the return behavior are both front-loaded rather than 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?

A six-parameter destructive mutation with no annotation-free safety net and 0% schema description coverage needs more than this. Output format is covered by the output schema, but nothing explains what the meeting agent actually does once scheduled, how announce affects the call, or how to recover the receipt.

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% and the description names no parameter. 'Recording consent' loosely implies consentAttested and 'durable operation receipt' hints at idempotencyKey, but startsAt, announce (default true), and title get nothing, and no format expectations are set.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Schedules a Wisprs meeting agent.' An agent can tell this apart from cancel_meeting_capture by the verb alone. No explicit sibling named, so it stops 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?

It states one hard precondition, 'after explicit recording consent,' which is genuine usage context. But it gives no when-not, no alternatives, and no hint that cancel_meeting_capture or list_meeting_sessions are the companion calls.

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