meetings_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing meeting' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It should explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, and expected outcomes to adequately guide the agent, but it provides only the bare minimum purpose statement.

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%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain that 'meetingId' identifies the meeting to update or that 'properties' contains the fields to modify, leaving the agent to infer this from the schema alone.

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 'Update an existing meeting' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (meeting), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_update' or 'meetings_create', which would require more specificity to earn a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meetings_batch_update' for multiple updates or 'meetings_create' for new meetings. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing meeting ID) or context for when updates are appropriate versus other operations.

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