ews_update_meeting_preview

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

With no annotations, the description clearly discloses the primary behavioral trait: no save or send. It adds context about requiring exact id and changekey. Could mention any temporary state changes or whether the preview modifies anything.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not specify what the preview returns (e.g., a diff, a summary). This leaves the agent uncertain about the output format.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the required parameters ('exact id and changekey') but does not add new meaning or clarify how parameters affect the preview output.

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 uses specific language: 'Preview changes to an existing meeting using exact id and changekey.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ews_update_meeting_confirmed by stating it does not save or send updates.

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 explicitly states the tool is for previewing and does not save/send, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly name the confirmed sibling as the alternative for actual updates.

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