meeting_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the deprecation warning behavior for legacy string participants and the difference in output (empty launch_call vs fully populated). It also adds context that team_name is deprecated and ignored by the CC Agent, clarifying a behavioral quirk. This is meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence stating purpose, then a compact two-bullet format breakdown. Every sentence adds value; there's no filler. It's slightly longer than minimal but the format examples justify the length given the complexity of the participants parameter. Not a 5 because it could be tightened slightly, but it's 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?

The tool has 7 params, an output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry significant weight. It covers both input formats in depth, explains the output dispatch_plan difference, and clarifies the deprecated team_name field. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation isn't needed in text. This is reasonably complete for a moderately complex tool, though it doesn't mention behaviors like required rounds count, meeting validation, or error cases.

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 describes all 7 parameters. However, the description adds real value by explaining the participants parameter's two accepted formats with concrete examples, showing the structure of structured dicts (name, agent_template, role, context_files, expected_output) and what each produces. It also clarifies the team_name deprecation. This goes beyond the generic schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('team meeting') and clearly states the outputs: a dispatch_plan and an Agent tool launch_call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly covering the two participant formats (legacy strings vs structured dicts), which no sibling description implies.

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 clearly explains when to use structured vs legacy participant formats and what each returns, giving practical guidance on format selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when X' exclusions, but the format guidance plus the sibling set (meeting_send_message, meeting_conclude, meeting_update) provides adequate context. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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