update_recurring_meeting

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/non-idempotent annotations: it discloses that future occurrences move and get renamed, that non-time-of-day schedule changes can delete cancelled occurrences, that 17.4–17.8 time-of-day changes rewrite past slot times, and that participants receive update emails. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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 purpose and version requirement, then side effects. The 17.4–17.8 quirk sentence is long but carries real operational value; nothing is redundant.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the side-effect disclosure is strong, but the sparse parameter documentation (8 optional scheduling fields at 22% coverage) leaves an agent unsure how to express a schedule change correctly.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate, but it names no parameter and does not explain frequency values, interval semantics, or the end_date vs end_after vs iterations options. It only alludes vaguely to 'schedule change' and 'time of day', leaving the bulk of the 9 parameters undocumented.

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 ('Update an OpenProject recurring meeting series'), which is clearly distinct from update_meeting, create_recurring_meeting, and delete_recurring_meeting. It does not explicitly contrast with the occurrence-level siblings (cancel_recurring_meeting_occurrence, init_recurring_meeting_occurrence), so the differentiation is clear but not maximized.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as cancel_recurring_meeting_occurrence or delete_recurring_meeting; usage is only implied by 'update a series'. The confirm-preview workflow lives in the schema rather than the description.

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