create_meeting

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

Annotations already cover mutability (non-read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral context: the meeting is created as a draft with notifications off, and state/notify are rejected. It does not mention permission requirements or what the response contains, which keeps it below a 5.

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 operation and version, then two short field-specific notes. Every sentence carries new information and there is no 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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about what is returned (e.g., the new meeting id), which an agent needs to chain follow-up calls. Behavioral and parameter context is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the duration format (ISO 8601, hours/minutes only) and the rejection of state/notify. Combined with the schema-documented confirm and participant_user_refs, the important semantics are covered, though sharing, location, and start_time receive no added meaning.

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 ("Create an OpenProject meeting") with a version prerequisite. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_recurring_meeting, but the intended operation is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit constraints (requires 17.4+) and pre-empts a common misuse by saying state and notify cannot be set on create and should be set with update_meeting instead. No general when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing for the excluded fields is clear.

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