meetings_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('archive (delete)'), which is useful, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether archiving is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - just three words that directly convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy, making it front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what 'archive' means operationally (soft delete vs permanent), what permissions are needed, whether the action is reversible, or what the response contains. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty.

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?

The description mentions 'a meeting' which implies the 'meetingId' parameter, but doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (a required string parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what format the meetingId should be in or where to find it. The baseline is 3 since the single parameter is obvious from context.

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 ('archive (delete)') and resource ('a meeting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_archive' or 'calls_archive', which would require specifying this is for single meetings only.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meetings_batch_archive' for multiple meetings or 'meetings_update' for modifying instead of deleting. The description simply states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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