meeting_conclude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the attendance-check default, the force override and its logging consequence, and the non-obvious fact that summary is discarded, nothing is written to memory, and no decision is recorded. These are the side effects an agent most needs before calling 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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: core action first, then the two behavioral caveats. No filler sentences, and the surprising behavior (summary is not saved) is called out where it matters.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers the behavior, the override cost, and the correct alternative for persistence — nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value beyond it by explaining the semantics of force (override recorded in the event log) and summary (accepted but not saved, with the task wall as the correct destination), though much of this duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 and resource ('Conclude a meeting, marking it as completed') and adds meaningful scope detail about participant validation. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like meeting_update or meeting_attendance_check.

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?

Explicitly describes the default path (validates that all expected participants have spoken) and the override path (force=True), plus a documented cost for the override (recorded in the event log). It also routes the agent to alternatives for persisting conclusions (task_create / task_update), which is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance the rubric rewards.

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