Update a meeting type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: unspecified fields keep their current values, which prevents the agent from assuming omitted fields are reset. This is useful context beyond what the annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical partial-update clarification follows immediately. Every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main invocation nuance—partial updates—and the required meetingTypeId is documented in the schema. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and does not discuss effects on a live booking page, but destructiveHint covers the safety concern.

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 60%, covering most meaningful parameters like name, slug, color, channel, duration, redirect, and buffers. The description adds the important partial-update rule for all optional parameters, but it does not explain the remaining undocumented booleans; their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 the specific verb 'Change' and the resource 'meeting type', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_meeting_type, delete_meeting_type, and get_meeting_type. An agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 such as create_meeting_type or delete_meeting_type. It explains the partial-update semantics but never states 'use this to modify an existing meeting type' or directs the agent to a sibling tool for creating or deleting.

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