meeting_update

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Update meeting fields' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as immediate effect, required permissions, or whether updates are reversible. Lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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?

Two sentences conveying essential information. First sentence states the resource and fields; second provides usage guidance and alternative tool. Extremely concise with no redundant content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (update fields), the description covers purpose and usage. However, lacks behavioral transparency and does not mention any preconditions or side effects. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'add conclusions/notes' is already in the notes parameter description). Baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'meeting fields' (topic, participants, notes). It distinguishes from sibling 'meeting_conclude' by explicitly stating that concluding should use a different tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'add conclusions/notes to a meeting or update its topic'. Also gives a clear when-not-to-use: 'To formally conclude a meeting... use meeting_conclude instead', pointing to the appropriate alternative.

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