meet_end_conference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing the tool's behavioral characteristics. It does not mention side effects (e.g., disconnecting participants), irreversibility, whether the space itself is deleted, or error conditions for non-active conferences. For a state-changing mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simple nature and the presence of an output schema, the description should still cover more behavioral context. It lacks usage guidance, side effects, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema provides only 'space_name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning by saying 'in a meeting space,' which hints that the parameter refers to a meeting space, but it does not clarify expected format, whether it is an ID or display name, or how to obtain it. The description only weakly compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'End an active conference in a meeting space.' It uses a specific verb ('end') and resource ('conference'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meet_create_space and meet_get_space by focusing on termination. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the conference must be active), and no exclusions or references to related tools. The description implies usage only through the phrase 'active conference,' but does not elaborate on conditions or compare to any other meet tools.

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