Update meeting outcome

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the critical timing rule: 'this only works while the meeting state is exactly in_progress' and warns about validation errors after the meeting is closed. It also exposes concurrency behavior ('a simultaneous edit by somebody else is silently overwritten') and the required 'manage outcomes' permission (403 otherwise), which annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into usage, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every sentence adds information: timing constraints, concurrency implications, permission requirements, return response shape, and related tools. Despite its length, it is tightly structured with no filler, making it appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given the tool's operational complexity (timing, permissions, concurrency), the description covers all necessary context: what happens on closed meetings, lack of lock_version, 403 condition, and the success response shape ('same shape as add_meeting_outcome'). With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return fields, so this is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including omit behavior and constraints (e.g., 'Omit to keep the current one' and 'Switching to work_package needs a linked work package'). The description adds the partial-update rule 'Only the parameters you pass are sent,' but this is largely reinforced by the schema's per-field omission notes. No significant semantic gap exists, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Correct a recorded outcome's kind, text or linked work package.' It clearly identifies the tool as an update operation for existing meeting outcomes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_meeting_outcome and delete_meeting_outcome by focusing on correction/update.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it while the meeting still runs: fix a typo in the minutes, upgrade an information note to a decision, or attach the follow-up ticket...' It also names cross-references such as get_meeting for retrieving the outcome id, add_meeting_outcome for kind rules, and delete_meeting_outcome for removal, providing clear alternative guidance.

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