Create recurring meeting

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

Despite openWorldHint=true and no explicit side-effect annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral nuance: the template is created as a DRAFT and occurrences cannot initialize until update_meeting sets state='open'; OpenProject overwrites time_zone on create and the tool compensates with a follow-up PATCH; and if the PATCH is refused for missing 'edit meetings' permission, the series is still created with the zone named in notes. This is exactly the depth a mutation tool needs.

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?

The description is long but densely actionable and front-loaded: purpose and use case first, then workflow, then pitfalls, then cross-references. Each named pitfall (DRAFT template, time_zone overwrite/PATCH fallback) earns its place given the 15-parameter, multi-step tool. It is not wasteful, though the cross-reference list could be trimmed; still, length is justified by complexity.

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 high-complexity tool with 15 params, a multi-step draft/publish lifecycle, and a known source-system overwrite bug, the description covers all core needs: purpose, validation rules, side effects, permission requirements, failure fallbacks, and return shape (delegated to get_recurring_meeting plus an output schema that exists). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the local validation of frequency/end_after combinations 'rejecting a bad combination with the allowed matrix spelled out,' and by detailing the time_zone behavior (validated locally because 'OpenProject would silently store a typo and fall back to the account's zone'). This elevates it above baseline without duplicating per-parameter docs.

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?

The opening line states a precise verb+resource: 'Create a recurring meeting series: a schedule plus a template the occurrences copy.' It gives a concrete usage example ('set up a weekly sync Mondays at 9') and is clearly distinguished from siblings like create_meeting and create_work_package by describing the series-plus-template model without naming them 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?

The description anchors usage with an explicit intention example and lays out the full lifecycle via cross-references: update_meeting to publish the template, init_recurring_meeting_occurrence to materialize slots, get_recurring_meeting to read back. It does not state a when-not-to-use exclusion (e.g., 'for a single occurrence use create_meeting'), relying instead on the workflow narrative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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