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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the five-question flow, the resulting plan and experiences, and the privacy behavior that answers stay in the card unless the user shares them.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core flow comes first, then modes, then usage triggers, then privacy. It is a single long paragraph with semicolon-heavy mode definitions, so it is efficient but could be slightly easier to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the interaction flow, both enum values, when the tool is useful, and the privacy behavior, while annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning of the sole mode parameter. It does so explicitly: difficult_conversation is for preparing what you want, the other person's side, and your opening line; self_doubt is for answering doubt with evidence and a balanced thought.

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 resource and process: a short guided reflection in chat with five questions, a plan, a breathing exercise, and a Reulay experience. It also names the two supported modes, which makes the tool distinct from siblings like start_breathing_exercise or start_experience even though those appear as outputs.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: preparing for feedback, conflict, negotiation, or asking for something; dreading a conversation; self-doubt, imposter feelings, harsh self-talk, or catastrophizing. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as suggest_reset or start_mindset_assessment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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