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

Beyond annotations that mark destructive/idempotent behavior, the description clarifies the exact consequence: recording stops but recorded content is still processed. It also states the auth requirement (OAuth 2.1 user access token), which is context the schema/annotations don't provide. No contradiction 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action + non-destructive nuance, source of identifiers, and auth requirement. Key behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter action with annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, identifier provenance, and auth. The only small gap is not explicitly stating that exactly one of job_id/transcription_id must be supplied, despite the either/or wording.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two identifiers are alternatives and that they come from list_scheduled_meetings, which the bare schema doesn't convey. It doesn't fully specify exclusivity/requiredness, hence not a 5.

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 opens with a specific action ('Tell a meeting bot ... to leave') and clearly identifies the resource (bot currently in a call), which distinguishes it from siblings like start_meeting_bot and cancel_scheduled_bot. The scope is unambiguous: a live call, not a scheduled job.

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 specifies the target state ('currently in a call') and tells the agent where to get the identifiers (list_scheduled_meetings). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the 'currently in a call' condition makes the use case clear enough.

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