meetings_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an archive/delete operation, which implies it's destructive, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. No information about permissions, rate limits, or what happens to associated data is provided, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, what the response looks like, or potential errors. Given the tool's complexity (permanent data modification) and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for safe use.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the schema has 1 parameter (meetingId) with 0% description coverage. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is higher than for complex tools. The description implies the tool acts on a meeting, which loosely relates to the meetingId parameter.

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 the action ('archive/delete') and resource ('a meeting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_archive' or other archive tools for different resources, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a meeting ID), when to choose batch archiving instead, or how this differs from other meeting operations like 'meetings_update' or 'meetings_get'. The agent receives no usage context.

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