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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value by flagging 'MUTATES Parabol data', naming the auth scope (MEETINGS_WRITE) and the underlying GraphQL operation (startCheckIn → union). It stops short of describing side effects such as notifying team members or whether concurrent meetings are allowed.

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?

Dense but waste-free: mutation/advisory flag first, then required param, then optional param, then permission. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation risk, required auth scope, and the returned meetingId. Only the side-effect/visibility story is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description merely restates 'Required: teamId. Optionally name it.' No format, ID source, or naming guidance is added beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('start a new Check-in (Action) meeting for a team') and even discloses the return value (meetingId). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_retrospective and start_team_prompt by the meeting type.

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 concrete preconditions: required teamId, optional name, and the MEETINGS_WRITE permission requirement. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling meeting starters, but the meeting-type framing makes the selection context clear.

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