Create a meeting type

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the meeting type goes live and publicly bookable immediately upon creation, and the URL slug is auto-generated from the name yet remains editable. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, roughly 40 words, with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence earning its place. Slight redundancy with the tool name ('Create a new meeting type') is offset by the added ownership and side-effect 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?

For a create tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description captures the non-obvious facts an agent must know: immediate public visibility and slug derivation/editability. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no guidance on duplicate name behavior or prerequisites), but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 69%, and the schema already documents most structured parameters well (duration range, 'local' channel semantics, buffer limits). The description adds one meaningful parameter relationship — the slug derives from the name — but does not compensate for the four undocumented boolean flags (enableRedirect, showAvailableSlots, etc.).

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+resource ('Create a new meeting type') and adds ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated user') plus the key consequence ('becomes a real, publicly bookable page immediately'). This is clear and distinguishes create from update/delete/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_one_time_booking_link to disambiguate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given a large sibling list containing overlapping booking concepts (create_one_time_booking_link, import_booking_page, update_meeting_type), the absence of any when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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