delete_meeting_agenda_item

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only say destructive=true, whereas the description discloses that outcomes are cascaded away, that the operation is irreversible, that closed meetings are rejected, and that a server version is required. These are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cascade effect, followed by environment and state constraints. Zero 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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, this covers irreversibility, cascade scope, and state preconditions. The remaining gap is the required identifier and the preview/confirm flow, the latter being handled by the schema's own parameter description.

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 parameter is well documented in the schema, but the single required parameter agenda_item_id has no description anywhere, and the description adds no clarification about what an agenda item id is or where to obtain it.

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 (delete a meeting agenda item) plus an important scope detail: outcomes are deleted with it, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_meeting_outcome. It does not, however, name any alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Provides preconditions (OpenProject 17.6+, rejected while the meeting is closed) which help the agent predict failure, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over update_meeting_agenda_item or delete_meeting_outcome, and no mention of the preview/confirm workflow referenced by the schema.

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