Update Meeting Attendee Record

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate a non-destructive write), the description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and provides the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose ('Update meeting attendee record'). It includes essential usage notes and endpoint details, though the Procore API section and endpoint line are somewhat extraneous for functional understanding.

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 simple update operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, required parameters, and the return value. It lacks details on error handling or permissions but provides sufficient context for the agent to invoke the 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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description reiterates required parameters ('meeting_id, project_id, id') and implies that only supplied fields are changed, adding slight behavioral context for optional parameters like 'status' and 'login_information_id.'

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 'Update meeting attendee record' and 'Updates the specified Meetings and returns the modified object on success,' indicating an update operation on a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_meeting_attendee_record' or 'delete_meeting_attendee_record.'

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Meetings' and lists required parameters ('meeting_id, project_id, id'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as create or delete operations.

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