delete_recurring_meeting

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the cascade (agenda, outcomes, attachments, time entries), stating irreversibility, noting the OpenProject 17.4+ version floor, and disclosing the cancellation emails sent to participants. That is exactly the extra context that matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is destroyed, then version requirement, then cascade and irreversibility, then side effects. No filler and no repetition of the name.

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, annotation-covered, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, blast radius, irreversibility, version constraint, and notification side effects. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both recurring_meeting_id (sourced from list_recurring_meetings) and the confirm preview/apply flag in detail. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 recurring meeting series') and immediately scopes it with 'with all its occurrences, past and future', which cleanly separates it from delete_meeting and cancel_recurring_meeting_occurrence. An agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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 'all its occurrences, past and future' clause implicitly routes the agent away from the per-occurrence cancel tool and the single-meeting delete tool. It never names those siblings explicitly, nor does it state any prerequisites such as required permissions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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