create_meeting_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a complete payload is required and provides a concrete example. While it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or error handling, the example and structure give sufficient transparency for a creation 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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then details the payload requirement, includes a minimal example, and ends with a tip. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly more concise by trimming the example length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete minimal example and explains the payload requirement. It also offers comparative guidance with another endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage with a generic object parameter. The description adds substantial meaning by explaining that payload is a meeting info object following the CreateMeetingTypeV4Dto schema and provides a detailed minimal example, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Create a meeting type' and provides a minimal example, clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_meeting_type, list_meeting_types, and update_meeting_type.

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 explains that meetergo requires a fairly complete meetingInfo object, gives a minimal example, and includes a tip comparing this endpoint to POST /v4/user (which creates a user + default meeting type), advising to use this endpoint for specific configurations. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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