meetings_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'archive/delete'), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance, the description is inadequate. It should address behavioral risks, usage context, and result expectations to be complete for safe and effective use.

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 description adds no information about the 'meetingId' parameter beyond what the input schema provides (a required string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any semantic detail reduces it to 3.

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 verb ('archive/delete') and resource ('a meeting'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_archive' or 'calls_archive', which have similar purposes but different scopes or resource types.

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 like 'meetings_batch_archive' for multiple meetings or other archive tools for different resources (e.g., 'calls_archive'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the meeting must exist or be in a specific state.

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