update_meeting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior, list joining, and Markdown support for description. It does not mention authentication or error handling, but key behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise, with two sentences and one note. It front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 15 parameters and nested objects, the description covers key behavior but lacks explanations for many parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 description must add meaning. It explains how attendee lists are handled and that description accepts Markdown, but does not explain many other parameters like start_date or meeting_type_id.

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 tool updates a meeting via a partial POST to a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'log_meeting' (create) and 'get_meeting' (read).

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?

It explains that only non-None fields are forwarded and omitted fields are preserved, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools, though the update purpose is implied.

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