Delete Meeting Attendee Record

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Permanently removes the meeting attendee record. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also describes specific error codes and their meanings. This aligns with and enriches the annotations without contradiction.

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 dense and well-structured, front-loading the action and prerequisites. It includes useful details like endpoint and error handling, though some repetition exists (e.g., two sentences about confirming/resolving id) and the API path/endpoint may be marginally redundant. Overall, it earns its length.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: prerequisites, id resolution, permanence, repeat-call behavior, failure modes with HTTP statuses, and the exact endpoint. An agent has sufficient context to select and call this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (id as URL path parameter, meeting_id/project_id as query strings). The description adds context on how to use these: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This reinforces the id's role and prerequisite, going slightly 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 opens with a specific action: 'Delete a specified meeting attendee record, disassociating a given user from a meeting.' This clearly names the verb, resource, and effect, and inherently distinguishes it from the sibling create/update meeting attendee record tools.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also states when not to proceed implicitly by noting a repeat call returns 404, and outlines common failure contexts (401/403/404). This is explicit and actionable.

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