Create Meeting

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds behavioral details: requires multipart/form-data for attachments, returns HTTP 201 on success, and lists required parameters (project_id, meeting). This provides useful transparency for the agent.

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 somewhat repetitious (e.g., 'Create a new Meeting' appears twice, and 'project_id' is listed twice). It could be more concise by removing redundant phrases and better structuring the information.

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 tool has 3 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and important attachment handling, the description covers the endpoint, HTTP method, success code, and required fields. It is sufficiently complete for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter info and adds attachment upload instructions, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new Meeting' and provides the endpoint POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_meeting_v1_0 and create_meeting_topic_project by referencing v1.1 and required parameters, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to create a new Meetings in Procore' and explains how to upload attachments via multipart/form-data. While it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it, the context is clear for creation tasks.

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