meetings_update

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. 'Update an existing meeting' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. The description should provide significantly more information given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object with 7 sub-properties), the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't mention 'meetingId' or the 'properties' object, nor does it explain what fields can be updated or their formats. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an existing meeting' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing meeting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_update' or 'calls_update', which would require more specific differentiation 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. With sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_update' and 'meetings_create' available, there's no indication whether this is for single meeting updates, what prerequisites might exist, or when batch operations would be more appropriate.

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