Update Recap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the confirm=true guard and the required scope (meeting_recaps:write), both of which matter for invoking a destructive write correctly.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, no filler or redundancy. It is terse and efficient, though fragmentary in style rather than fully polished.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral elements (state change, confirm guard, required scope) and the rich nested schema covers parameters. It is adequately complete, though it could note what a recap contains or the mutation's consequence more explicitly.

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 high (88%), so the schema documents parameters like confirm, payload, and the *_md fields adequately; baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the confirm parameter and adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (Recap), making the intent clear against siblings like get_recap/delete_recap. However, 'Changes Calendly state' is vague about what specifically is mutable (summary/discussion/action items), relying on the schema for that detail, and no sibling is explicitly named.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as delete_recap or get_recap. The only contextual hint is the prerequisite that confirm=true is required, which is a precondition rather than true when-to-use guidance.

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