calendar_add_meet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that guests are not e-mailed and that the tool returns the Meet link once the provider has it. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, but the schema supplies the editable-event constraint.

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 two tightly focused sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information about behavior: provider limitation, guest notification, and return value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential side effect (no guest e-mail) and the return value (Meet link). The fully documented schema handles parameters, though error behavior and existing-Meet-link conflicts are not addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents scope, start, timeout, and event_id. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Add a Google Meet video conference to one of your events." It also adds the useful constraint that the provider cannot create one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as calendar_remove_meet or calendar_meet_link, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by "to one of your events" and "the provider cannot create one," which suggests this is for events that need a Meet link added. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus calendar_remove_meet, calendar_meet_link, or calendar_create, and it gives no when-not guidance.

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