meetings_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema). This is inadequate for a 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 no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary details for a mutation tool, so while structurally simple, it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 (mutation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain updatable fields, behavioral implications, and usage context, but provides only a basic statement.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond implying 'meetingId' and 'properties' are needed, but doesn't explain what 'properties' contains (e.g., updatable fields like title, time, outcome) or their formats. It fails to 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 'Update an existing meeting' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('meeting'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_update' or 'meetings_create', leaving ambiguity about scope and granularity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meetings_batch_update' for multiple meetings or 'meetings_create' for new meetings. The description implies it's for existing meetings but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a meetingId) or contextual constraints.

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