Update Meeting

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a mutation. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that calendar invites are not sent by default and that setting do_not_send_calendar_invites to false will send them, plus the requirement to provide at least one field to update. This adds value beyond the structured 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 three sentences long, all information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then packs prerequisites, ID resolution pointers, calendar invite behavior, and return value into a compact structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (24 parameters), the schema fully describes all parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover mutability/destructive hints. The description adds the essential operational context: required fields, ID resolution, and the calendar invite default. It is complete enough for an agent to select and 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 has 100% coverage of all 24 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint ('at least one field to update') and references external tools for resolving certain IDs, but this is limited additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Updates one existing Recruit CRM meeting by meeting_id.' It specifies the verb (updates), the resource (Recruit CRM meeting), and the scope (one existing by meeting_id). This distinguishes it from create_meeting and search_meetings, which are sibling 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?

It explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires meeting_id, updated_by, and at least one field to update.' It also directs users to sibling tools for resolving IDs ('Resolve meeting type IDs with list_meeting_types and user IDs with list_users'), and explains how to control calendar invite behavior. This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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