delete_meeting

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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the OpenProject 17.4+ requirement, irreversibility of one-time meeting deletion, cancellation emails sent to participants when notifications are on, template rejection, and that occurrences are only cancelled and reset to the series template on restore. These are side effects and preconditions an agent cannot infer from 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct load: cascade scope, version gate, reversibility, series semantics, and the routing alternative. The destructive caveat is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 exists, yet the description covers what an agent needs to call this safely: side effects, irreversibility, permission/version precondition, the series edge cases, and which sibling to use instead. The preview-then-apply confirm contract is handled by the schema, leaving no meaningful 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 50%: the confirm flag is well documented in the schema itself, while meeting_id has no description in either place. The text implies the identifier distinguishes a meeting, an occurrence, or a series template, but never says how to obtain a meeting_id (e.g., via list_meetings) or what a rejected template call returns.

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 plus the full cascade footprint ('with its agenda, outcomes, attachments and the time entries logged on it'), so the blast radius is clear from the first sentence. It is cleanly distinguishable from delete_recurring_meeting, which it explicitly routes to.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions and named alternatives: the template meeting of a series is rejected, and deleting the whole series requires delete_recurring_meeting instead. It also explains that an occurrence is merely cancelled and that init_recurring_meeting_occurrence restores it, which tells the agent exactly what this call does and does not achieve for each meeting type.

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