meetings_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'archive (delete)' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects associated data, or what happens after archival. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarity but leaves many behavioral questions unanswered for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by clarifying that 'archive' means 'delete' in this context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether data is recoverable, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The presence of sibling tools like meetings_batch_archive suggests this is part of a larger system where more context would be helpful.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (meetingId), the description doesn't explain what format the meetingId should be, where to find it, or provide any examples. However, since there's only one required parameter and the tool name suggests it's for meetings, the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('archive (delete)') and resource ('a meeting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other meeting tools like meetings_get or meetings_update by focusing on archival/deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from meetings_batch_archive, which handles multiple meetings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meetings_batch_archive for multiple meetings or other archive tools for different resources. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or typical use cases for archiving meetings versus other operations.

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