conduyt_zoom_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: read-only on Zoom, nothing created, the 409 zoom_not_configured precondition, and the full set of 200-with-ok:false error codes (host_not_found, credentials_rejected, scope_missing, vendor_unavailable), plus the required settings:view permission. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Densely front-loaded: what it does and its read-only nature come first, followed by the parameter role and error states. Every clause carries useful information, though the compact single paragraph packs many codes and could be slightly easier to scan.

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 one-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what success means, the failure codes, the 409 precondition, and the required permission. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema field text by tying hostEmail to the booking page's videoHostEmail requirement and explaining what passing it proves. The added context is real but limited to the single optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (prove the stored Zoom app works) plus the endpoint, and clarifies it is distinct from connecting/status siblings by describing exactly what is verified (token issuance, app user answering). An agent can distinguish this from conduyt_zoom_connect and conduyt_zoom_status without opening any 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?

Explains the conditional use of hostEmail (pass it to prove the user belongs to the Zoom account, which is what a booking page's videoHostEmail must be) and states it is read-only with nothing created. It does not explicitly name the alternative siblings (zoom_connect/zoom_status) or state when not to use it, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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