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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries real weight: it declares the mutation, the required MEETINGS_WRITE scope, the backing GraphQL call, and the <=2000-char TipTap/ProseMirror format constraint. Auth and format disclosures go well beyond the annotation.

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-loaded with the mutation warning, then the required/optional fields and GraphQL backing in a tight paragraph. No wasted sentences, though the required-field enumeration is dense and includes the inaccurate sortOrder claim.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the operation, required inputs, content format, and permission scope adequately. The mislabeled required sortOrder is the main gap; return behavior is reasonably out of scope without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates schema details (float sortOrder, stringified TipTap content). It also states sortOrder is Required, contradicting the schema where it is optional with a default of 0, which slightly undermines the parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('add a reflection card') plus its scope ('a running retrospective's reflect phase'), which cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like add_comment and create_task. The leading 'MUTATES Parabol data' immediately signals the operation class.

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 clear context for use: it targets a retrospective that is running and in its reflect phase, and notes the MEETINGS_WRITE requirement. It does not name alternatives (e.g. add_comment) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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