meetings_update

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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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 incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what can be updated, behavioral constraints, error handling, and response format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'an existing meeting' which hints at the meetingId parameter, but doesn't explain the properties object or any of its nested fields (title, body, location, times, outcome, owner). For a tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object), this minimal guidance is insufficient.

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. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'meetings_create' and 'meetings_delete' by specifying it's for existing meetings. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (title, time, etc.), which prevents 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a meetingId), when to use batch_update instead, or what distinguishes it from meetings_create or meetings_delete. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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