create_meeting_outcome

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses the version requirement and, notably, that a wrong kind value triggers a 500 internal server error instead of a clean validation error — genuinely useful behavioral context for an agent. It does not describe the write result or whether duplicates are allowed, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then constraints follow in a sensible order. The parenthetical warning about "info"/"action" is long but earns its place by preventing a server error; the prose is otherwise tight.

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?

A mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema; the description covers purpose, version gate, enum values, and per-kind requirements, while the confirm preview workflow is documented in the schema. Only the return shape (does it return the created outcome?) is left unstated, a minor 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 coverage is only 40% and the kind parameter has no enum in the schema at all, yet the description enumerates the exact valid values and explicitly rejects near-miss strings like "info" and "action". It also states the conditional requirements linking kind to notes and work_package_id, which the schema does not express.

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?

"Create a meeting outcome on an agenda item" gives a specific verb (create), a specific resource (meeting outcome) and its parent scope (agenda item), which separates it cleanly from create_meeting, create_meeting_agenda_item, and update_meeting_outcome in the sibling list.

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 gives real preconditions: the OpenProject 17.6+ version floor, the allowed kind values, and which parameters each kind forces (notes for information, work_package_id for work_package). It does not say when to prefer this over update_meeting_outcome or how it relates to an existing outcome, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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