update_meeting_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'partial update' but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, reversibility, side effects on bookings, rate limits, or error states. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 two sentences plus an example. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose and key behavior (partial update). The example is concise and illustrative. No wasted words.

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?

Although the tool has moderate complexity (two params, nested object) and no output schema, the description covers main usage but lacks detail on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool, more complete context would be beneficial.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'patch' is a partial update and provides a concrete example. It lists many possible fields (duration, slug, etc.), though not exhaustively. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Edit a meeting type' with the verb 'edit' and resource 'meeting type'. It explicitly mentions 'partial update' and lists specific fields that can be changed (rename, duration, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_meeting_type' and 'get_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 implies usage for updating an existing meeting type via 'partial update', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_meeting_type' or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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