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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the key nuance that this 'destruction' is a recoverable move to trash, and it names the restore tool. That clarifies the reversibility of the operation beyond the raw annotation, which is genuinely valuable.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the scope (to trash) and recovery mechanism are stated immediately.

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 2-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral nuance (soft delete + restore path). Nothing critical is absent, though it could note that items in trash reappear via restore and whether the meeting can still be updated meanwhile.

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%, so both meeting_id and workspace_id are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or ID sourcing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Manda ... a la papelera') and resource (recap/reunión), and clarifies it is a soft-delete rather than permanent removal. It distinguishes the action from the harder deletes by naming the trash/recovery path, though it never explicitly differentiates from the sibling delete_meeting_type.

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?

Implies a trash-based soft delete and points to restore_from_trash as the undo path, which is useful routing. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. delete_meeting_type, update_meeting) and no prerequisites, leaving usage to inference.

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