cancel_recurring_meeting_occurrence

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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent, but the description adds what actually happens underneath: a cancelled Meeting record is created, its id is not returned, and a series schedule change (other than time of day) can delete it later. It also names the recovery path (list_meetings / list_recurring_meeting_occurrences filter='cancelled'), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a version requirement, then parameter guidance, then the materialized-vs-virtual branch. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the informal parentheticals and line-broken layout make it slightly harder to scan than a tight paragraph would.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly notes that the result omits the new meeting's id and tells the agent how to locate it afterwards. Version requirement, failure mode, recovery path and semantics are all covered for a destructive mutation.

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 coverage is 67%; start_time is undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates by specifying ISO 8601 and tying it to init_recurring_meeting_occurrence's addressing scheme. The confirm preview/apply workflow is left to the schema rather than reinforced here, so this stops short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a ... recurring-meeting occurrence') with the crucial qualifier 'virtual (not-yet-materialized)', which distinguishes it from delete_meeting and init_recurring_meeting_occurrence. An agent can immediately tell what this does and what it is not.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: if the occurrence is already materialized, use delete_meeting on the real Meeting instead; if not, this tool records a cancelled Meeting that init_recurring_meeting_occurrence can restore. Names the alternatives and the exact conditions selecting them.

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