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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint and a title, so the description carries real weight: it declares the write nature ("MUTATES"), the required permission scope (MEETINGS_WRITE), the returned value (meetingId), and the underlying GraphQL operation with a union return. It does not cover idempotency or what happens when the team already has an active retro, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense block with the mutation warning front-loaded, followed by required/optional params, then auth scope and backend mapping. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: mutation semantics, permission requirement, and the return value shape. It stops short of documenting the union/error cases or behavior when a meeting is already running.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that teamId is required and name is optional, adding no format, constraint, or default information beyond structured data.

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 (start a retrospective meeting) plus its scope (for a team), which cleanly separates it from the sibling start tools start_checkin and start_team_prompt. It also flags the mutation up front, so the operation type is unambiguous.

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?

The description states prerequisites (required teamId, optional name, MEETINGS_WRITE scope) but never says when to pick this over alternatives such as start_checkin/start_team_prompt or how it relates to list_active_meetings. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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