Create Meeting Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the destination folder (Meetings/) and the included sections (attendees, agenda, decisions, etc.), but it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting, folder creation, or error handling. This adds useful context but lacks depth.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and location, the second concisely lists the key content elements. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview, including folder placement and content structure, while the schema covers parameter specifics. It does not discuss return values or overwrite behavior, but the essentials for selecting and invoking the tool are present.

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 description coverage is 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists content fields (attendees, agenda, discussion notes, decisions, action items) that map to schema properties, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the 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 'Create a structured meeting note in the Meetings/ folder' – a specific verb, resource, and location. It distinguishes from siblings like create_note (generic) and create_prd/create_process_doc by emphasizing the meeting-specific structure and target folder.

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 capturing structured meeting notes and names the Meetings/ folder, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use it or compare with alternatives like create_note, so the guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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