record_meeting_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Record' implies a write/persist operation, but the description doesn't state whether this updates existing meeting records, creates a new record, overwrites prior outcomes, or whether event_id must reference an existing calendar event. It doesn't disclose idempotency, error conditions for invalid event_id, or what happens to previously recorded outcomes.

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 compact with a header line followed by a short bulleted list of what to capture. Every sentence earns its place and there's no filler or redundancy. The structure aids scanning with the bullet points enumerating the conceptual capture categories.

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 10 parameters which adds complexity, but the output schema exists (which relieves some burden on return-value explanation). However, the description doesn't clarify the relationship between this tool and its siblings like get_meeting_outcome, get_recent_meeting_outcomes, and prepare_for_meeting. For a meeting-outcome write operation, the absence of details about whether event_id must be a validated calendar event is a notable gap.

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 the input schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by mapping the 'What was decided' (decisions), 'What's next' (next_steps), and 'Key discussion points' (key_points) parameters to conceptual groups, which helps the agent populate fields correctly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this tool records meeting outcomes with a specific verb+resource ('Record the outcomes of a meeting'). It distinguishes itself from related read tools like get_meeting_outcome and get_recent_meeting_outcomes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling write tools like create_commitment or create_follow_up, though the meeting-specific scope is clear.

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 says 'Use this after meetings to capture' and lists what to capture, which provides clear context on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., complete_commitment or create_follow_up for action items in a separate system). The context is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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