Write up a meeting

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds beyond that: the write is atomic in both directions ('written in one go and undone in one go') and decisions/tasks link back to their source line. It stops short of spelling out permissions or exact return shape, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads the tool's output before prerequisites and parameter routing. Dense but each sentence carries actionable content; the phrasing is slightly loose ('Give the event when the meeting is one already') but nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite read, the parameter routing, the atomic-write behavior, and what gets produced. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only fine-grained error/permission behavior is absent, which annotations partly cover.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine routing meaning the schema does not: when to pass event vs recording vs both ('join them'). The tasks/decisions 'where in the recording' semantics are partly covered by schema descriptions but reinforced here.

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+resource ('Write up a meeting from its recording's transcript') and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: a summary, the decisions, and the tasks, each with a transcript location. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like record_meeting and write_down.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Read the recording with get_record on file first') and routes the agent among parameter combinations: event when the meeting already exists, recording when it does not, or both to join them. The conditions selecting each path are stated, not inferred.

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