Add Zero Meeting Prep Note

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

Annotations are present but minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond these by clarifying that the tool does not send messages or schedule a bot, and that it saves a 'manual' note, implying no auto-generation. It does not disclose overwriting behavior or error conditions, but the explicit side-effect exclusions are useful context not present in 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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying negation follows briefly. Every word contributes to disambiguating the tool's scope. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the core action and a key behavioral limitation. However, it omits crucial usage details like parameter semantics, whether it overwrites existing prep notes, and any validation (e.g., meeting must exist). Since schema coverage is 0%, these gaps make the description incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without extra reasoning.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints that meeting_id refers to a user-accessible meeting, but provides no detail on note_text content, format, or constraints beyond what the schema offers (min/max length). The description does not add meaningful semantic information for either parameter, leaving the agent to infer from names and context.

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 states a clear verb ('Save') and resource ('manual prep note') with a scope ('for a user-accessible meeting'), and explicitly contrasts with actions it does not perform ('does not send messages or schedule a bot'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_meeting_prep and any messaging/scheduling tools, making the 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 gives context about when to use it (to save a manual prep note) and states exclusions (no messages, no bot scheduling), which indirectly steers away from certain tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_meeting_prep for retrieval, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the meeting existing or being user-accessible. Guidance is implied rather than explicitly comparative.

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