create_meeting

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it creates an external Teams meeting via Graph and sends invites immediately, which are important side effects. It does not cover auth or error details, but the key behavioral consequences are disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded two-sentence definition with no filler. Every clause adds meaning: parameters, optionality, external creation, and immediate invites.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential call shape and the major side effects, but it leaves gaps around return value, invite defaults, and the meaning of serviceRequestId. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 low (29%), and the description partially compensates by naming title, scheduledAt, duration, optional serviceRequestId, and invite selection. However, it omits the 'description' parameter and does not clarify how serviceRequestId affects the meeting or what the invite flag defaults are.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a meeting'), lists the core parameters, and notes the external Teams/Graph integration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_meetings and respond_to_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?

It clearly frames the tool as the meeting-creation entry point, including immediate invite sending, which differentiates it from list_meetings and respond_to_meeting. It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

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