meeting_create

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool returns a dispatch_plan and that different participant formats affect the output (deprecation warning vs fully populated launch_call). However, it's ambiguous whether the tool actually creates the meeting or only returns a plan, and no permission or side-effect information is provided.

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: a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet-like explanation of two participant modes. Every sentence adds information, and it avoids unnecessary fluff. Slightly longer than minimal but efficient for the complexity.

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?

While the description covers the participant format behavior and basic output, it lacks clarity on whether the tool actually creates the meeting or just returns a plan. It also omits prerequisites, error states, or how the dispatch_plan is used beyond 'ready to paste'. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to detail return values, but the core action ambiguity reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by detailing the two participant formats with examples, explaining the effect of 'rounds' with a sample structure, and clarifying that 'materials' are global file paths. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 (create), resource (team meeting), and specific outcome (return a dispatch_plan for spawning participant Agents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like meeting_list or meeting_conclude by focusing on creation and the two participant format options.

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 explicit guidance on when to use legacy string participants vs structured dicts, including the impact on the output. Although it doesn't directly compare to sibling meeting tools, the two-format guidance is actionable and context-aware.

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