meetings_batch_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool archives/deletes meetings, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether archiving is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, how errors are handled in batch operations, or what the response contains. For a destructive batch tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('archive/delete') and scope ('multiple meetings in a single request'). There's no wasted language, and it immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a destructive batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: error handling for partial failures, response format, permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 mentions 'multiple meetings' which aligns with the 'meetingIds' array parameter, adding context that it accepts multiple IDs. However, with 0% schema description coverage (no schema descriptions for parameters), the description doesn't compensate by explaining the ID format, constraints (e.g., minimum/maximum array size), or examples. The baseline is 3 since it adds some meaning but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 verb ('archive/delete') and resource ('multiple meetings'), and specifies it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'meetings_archive' sibling tool by emphasizing the batch nature. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch tools like 'meetings_batch_create' or 'meetings_batch_update' beyond the archive action.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing meeting IDs), when batch archiving is preferable to individual archiving, or what happens if some meetings can't be archived. With multiple sibling tools including singular 'meetings_archive' and other batch operations, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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