meet_start_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it delivers meaningfully. It discloses durability, append-only disk buffering, a 3+ hour capacity, and the specific failure modes it prevents (memory exhaustion, data loss). It does not disclose idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens if called twice with the same meeting_code, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 with the main action front-loaded and every clause earning its place. The durability guarantee and the 3+ hour claim are packed efficiently without filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are handled, and the description covers core behavior well. However, with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no positioning relative to siblings — especially the auth tools and meet_ingest_chunk — the agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool correctly within the larger meeting workflow.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (title, source, meeting_code). The unexplained defaults — including the Vietnamese default 'Cuộc họp trực tiếp' and source='live_stream' — leave an agent without any basis for choosing parameter values or understanding what meeting_code is for.

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 and resource — 'Starts a new durable meeting session' — with 'durable' and 'append-only disk buffering' adding discriminating detail. The action clearly contrasts with sibling tools that list, fetch, ingest, synthesize, or export, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are stated. Given siblings like meet_check_auth and meet_setup_auth, an agent is left to guess whether authentication must happen first. The tool's position in the session pipeline (start → ingest → synthesize → export) is never indicated.

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