Remove Assistant from Meeting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, indicating the operation is non-destructive and safe to retry. The description simply restates the action without adding behavioral context such as what happens to recordings, service interruption, or authentication requirements. It neither contradicts nor significantly augments the annotations.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope. Every word contributes value, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on edge cases like missing meeting event or assistant not assigned. It also does not mention that the removal might stop assistant processing. An output schema exists but is not evaluated; the description could briefly indicate what the response confirms.

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 100%—the only parameter, 'meetingAssistantEventId', is already described as 'Unique identifier of the meeting assistant event'. The tool description adds no additional meaning, context, or format details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (remove), the resource (Speak AI assistant), and the context (active or scheduled meeting). It is specific and distinguishes from general deletion tools like 'delete_scheduled_assistant', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar operations.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_scheduled_assistant', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., meeting must exist, assistant must be currently assigned). The agent receives no decision-making support.

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