meetings_batch_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive batch operation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key information about what the tool does.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like error handling, confirmation requirements, batch size limits, or what the response contains. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial tool that requires more complete 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?

The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters, but here we have 1 undocumented parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'meetingIds' should contain, their format, or any constraints, so it doesn't compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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') with the scope 'in a single request'. It distinguishes from individual meeting operations like 'meetings_delete' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'calls_batch_archive' or 'emails_batch_archive'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose this over 'meetings_delete' for single meetings or other batch operations. The sibling tools list shows many similar batch operations, but no comparative context is given.

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