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

Clearly signals mutation with 'MUTATES Parabol data,' which aligns with destructiveHint=true and adds the specific MEETINGS_WRITE permission and underlying GraphQL mutation startTeamPrompt. This goes beyond the boolean annotation and gives the agent useful operational context.

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 compact: three short sentences that front-load the mutation warning and then quickly cover requirements, defaults, GraphQL operation, and permissions. There is no filler or repetition beyond the useful 'MUTATES' emphasis.

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, the description covers the required parameter, the optional parameter, the permission, and the GraphQL operation. There is no output schema, but the 'union' hint provides some return-shape awareness; explicit sibling routing is the main missing piece.

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%, and both teamId and name are already described in the schema. The description restates that teamId is required and name defaults to 'Standup,' which reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 precise action: 'start a new async Standup (Team Prompt) meeting for a team.' The resource is clearly a team and the required teamId is called out, and the meeting type distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_checkin and start_retrospective.

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?

Provides important operational context like the required teamId, optional name default, and MEETINGS_WRITE permission, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over start_checkin or start_retrospective. The use case is implied by 'Standup (Team Prompt)' rather than explicitly routed.

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