ktalk_preview_cancel_meeting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses zero network calls, no mutation of state, no persistence of the id, and a caveat about the only reliably working `reason` value. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know and are not inferable from the schema alone.

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 well structured: a one-line core purpose, a crucial non-behavior warning, and a clear Args block. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most important caveat is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 non-mutating preview operation with three straightforward parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it does not do, how to actually cancel, and the semantics of every parameter. No critical context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains that `id` is a Base64 meeting id from specific sources and is not resolved by name/date, that `reason` defaults to empty and is the only confirmed working value, and that `format` selects 'raw' JSON or 'markdown'.

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 states a specific verb ('preview cancellation') and resource ('a single meeting'), and immediately clarifies that it does not actually cancel anything. It clearly distinguishes itself from the real cancellation path (CLI) and from any sibling MCP tool by explicitly saying no MCP tool cancels 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 explicitly says when not to use this tool ('Does not cancel anything, ever') and names the exact alternative for actually canceling a meeting: `cancel-meeting-confirm` in an interactive terminal. This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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