create_meeting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by disclosing the ID generation scheme, the storage folder, the side effect of logging creation to the daily note, and the return value including the generated meeting ID. It stops short of mentioning failure modes or permission requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short behavioral note, labeled args, and a labeled return section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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?

All four parameters are described with useful semantics, the return value is summarized, and important creation behaviors are disclosed. For a straightforward creation tool with a single required parameter and no nested objects, this description gives an agent everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for the undocumented input schema. It does: title gets an example, attendees gets a comma-separated format, date gets an explicit YYYY-MM-DD format and default, and extra_vars is explained as an optional template-variable dictionary. This adds far more meaning than the bare 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 'Create a new meeting note,' which is a specific verb and resource, and then adds distinguishing details: auto-generated IDs in the MTG-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN format and storage in the Meetings/ folder. This clearly identifies the tool among the many create_* siblings without relying solely on the tool name.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_zettel, create_daily_note, or create_literature_note. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria, so the agent gets no help choosing among the sibling creation tools.

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