Record a meeting

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses that it creates reminders that fire at meeting start or end, opens the meeting page ready to record with microphone and system sound, and that reminders repeat with each occurrence. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations alone.

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 run-on with sentence fragments ('With how here, a reminder as it starts...'), inconsistent punctuation and clauses (the parenthetical aside) that bury the core purpose. The single most important fact — that it only sets up recording — is not front-loaded and is diluted by later detail.

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 setup tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description does cover modes, triggers and recurrence. However, the obtuse phrasing leaves the actual effect and confirmation behavior less crisp than an agent needs, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum 'how' already documents 'here' and 'app' behavior, so the description's parallel explanation of the two modes largely repeats structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource and conveys that this 'sets up' recording rather than performing it now. But the opening 'Record a meeting, transcribe it and write it up after' is misleading — it suggests an immediate action before the clarifying 'this sets it up' arrives. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling write_up_meeting.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use ('when the person wants a meeting recorded, or records this one each time') and a partial when-not ('never for every event'). That covers the selection condition, though it does not name a competing sibling as an alternative.

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