Create a Teams meeting

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms creation and invitation sending. It adds behavioral details like 'sends invitations' and the return format, which are not in annotations. No contradictions.

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, with a clear top-level purpose sentence followed by a structured parameter list. Every line adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return value shape, and behavioral effects. It feels complete and self-contained.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: example ISO formats, explanation of local vs. UTC, default timezone, and optional fields. The schema itself is detailed, but the description enhances usability.

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 specifies the verb 'Create', the resource 'Microsoft Teams meeting as a calendar event', and key features (join link, optional attendees). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'teams_create_channel' which creates a different resource.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (to schedule a meeting), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to alternative tools. However, the context implies usage for meeting creation.

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