leave_meeting

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that transcription runs in the background and that the final text is retrieved via get_transcript. However, it does not mention side effects like whether the recording is saved or if leaving is irreversible, but the async behavior is a valuable addition.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the actions; the second explains the background transcription and where to retrieve results.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary effects and the follow-up tool, but omits the meaning of the required 'id' parameter and any prerequisites or errors. It is adequate but has 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. The agent must infer that 'id' refers to the meeting ID, so the description adds no semantic value for the 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?

The description clearly states the tool leaves the meeting, ends recording, and starts local transcription. It explicitly names get_transcript as the provider of the finished text, distinguishing this tool from transcribe_recording and get_transcript.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (leaving a meeting and wanting a transcript) and points to get_transcript as the follow-up. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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