meet_end_conference

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the precondition that the conference is active, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether participants are removed, recordings stopped, or artifacts deleted), permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context: no usage guidelines, no parameter semantics, and no disclosure of side effects. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input and behavioral aspects are insufficiently specified.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It fails to explain what 'space_name' refers to or how to obtain it. The parameter is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 action ('End') and the resource ('an active conference in a meeting space'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling meet tools like meet_create_space or meet_get_space. It leaves no doubt about what this tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to end an active conference. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., being the host) or when not to use it.

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