Update a scheduled meeting

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses blast radius (omitting occurrence rewrites the whole future series), that existing transcripts are not rewritten, and an auth constraint (admin password is not accepted). These are non-obvious traits beyond the schema. Gaps remain on permissions/ownership requirements and whether changes are reversible.

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 tight sentences, each carrying real information with no filler. It is not front-loaded with the core purpose, which slightly weakens orientation for an agent scanning descriptions.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior (series-wide edits, transcript immutability) but omits the response shape and the permission model. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented, including occurrence's omit/set semantics. The description mostly restates the occurrence rule and hints at room_password behavior via the admin-password note, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 never states plainly that this tool updates an existing scheduled meeting; it opens directly with occurrence-scoping semantics. The verb+resource come only from the name and title, and no sibling (cancel_schedule, import_schedule, schedule_meeting) is named or distinguished. Purpose is inferable but not articulated in the description itself.

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 gives a clear conditional rule for the occurrence parameter (omit = whole future series, set = single occurrence), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it offers nothing on when to use update_schedule versus cancel_schedule or schedule_meeting, and no prerequisites for editing an existing schedule.

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