I have two separate points to add to this. Point 1. During the pandemic, I learned that meetings also support team cohesion. We experimented with less meetings, but quickly got to a point where we restored at least _some_ meetings to ensure we'd stay functional as a team. This still matters given that we're still working from home 60-80% of the time.

Point 2. The meeting host needs to be able to answer the following questions for every invitee, and in turn, every invitee needs to know the answer to the following questions: 1) What is it that this person can _contribute to_ the meeting? 2) What is it that this person can _learn from_ the meeting?

With these two questions in mind, everything else becomes less important. For example, if everyone is clear about these two things, the meeting doesn't even need a description (or the other way around: if the answers to these questions are unclear, the meeting description can help answer them)

I agree with these, though the pandemic showed us (at least in my scenarios) online meetins really suck for a lot of the softer, agenda-less type activities. Casual, in-person hangs become AA meetings. It felt like we were sitting around a church basement on metal chairs (with the crappy coffee IRL too) waiting for our turn to speak. One of the good things IME was that scrum or dev-sized teams adopted extended pairing and group sessions; I saw (some) people get a lot better at working in public and sharing knowledge at this level.

The OP mentions it at the start, but I will reinforce: meetings suck if you're not prepared; use them to do work (like brain storm or make decisions) not share information. Breaking the "meeting as the big reveal" habit is surprisingly hard, but also solves the "should I attend?" question. To your point #2 a lot of that can be solved without attending if the appropriate prep and follow-up is covered. I don't really like RACI charts, but they do provide some value as a looser guide to thinking through the 2 questions you raise in point 2 above.