ktalk_preview_meeting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals zero network calls, no side effects, and the internal UTC conversion (ADR-009). It also explains the pin_code_explicit_none semantics and the lack of silent defaults, providing a clear picture of what the tool does and does not do.

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 (needed for 13 parameters) but well-structured with a clear heading, a short behavioral summary, and a bulleted Args list. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose and key caveats. It is dense yet readable; every sentence earns its place. Slightly on the verbose side, but justified given the parameter count.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, external CLI dependency), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral constraints. It even references ADRs for internal decisions and clarifies the confirmation_id's informational role. An output schema exists to cover return details, so no gap remains. A complete and self-sufficient definition.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each of the 13 parameters with type, requiredness, valid patterns (e.g., ISO 8601 with offset, numeric IDs as strings), and conditional requirements (e.g., anonymous_access_expiration needed only if allow_anonymous is True). This adds far more value than the raw schema.

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-resource pair: 'Preview a single meeting to be created' and immediately adds the critical scoping fact that it makes zero network calls. It also states explicitly that 'Does not create anything, ever', differentiating it from any hypothetical creation tool. This is precise and disambiguates from sibling tools like preview_cancel_meeting.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for previewing before creation. It also names the actual creation path (`create-meeting-confirm` in an interactive terminal) and clarifies that the confirmation_id is informational, not a machine-checkable link. This tells an agent exactly when to choose this tool and when to defer to external actions.

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