meetings_batch_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 indicates a destructive action ('Archive (delete)') but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or response format. This is inadequate for a batch mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 (batch destructive operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 'multiple meetings' and 'meetingIds', aligning with the single parameter in the schema (an array of strings). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful details like ID format, array size limits, or validation rules. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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) multiple meetings') and resource ('meetings'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'meetings_archive' (singular) or other batch operations, which would be needed for 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing meeting IDs), compare it to 'meetings_archive' for single meetings, or specify use cases for batch operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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