meetings_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('archive/delete'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether archiving is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits for batch operations, or what happens if some IDs fail. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive batch operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('archive/delete') and scope ('multiple meetings in a single request'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 destructive batch operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as error handling, response format, side effects, or prerequisites. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without guessing at critical behavioral aspects.

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?

The description mentions 'multiple meetings' which implies the 'meetingIds' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already shows (an array of strings). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format requirements (e.g., ID structure), size limits, or handling of invalid IDs. The baseline is appropriate given the minimal parameter info.

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 clearly states the verb ('archive/delete') and resource ('multiple meetings'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'meetings_delete' (single meeting deletion) or 'meetings_batch_update' (batch modification), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch archiving is preferable to individual deletion ('meetings_delete'), nor does it reference related batch operations like 'meetings_batch_update' or 'meetings_batch_create' for context.

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