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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the required MEETINGS_WRITE permission and the underlying GraphQL mutation (startTeamPrompt) returning a union type. It also flags the operation as a data mutation up front. It does not explain what happens to an existing active meeting or whether the call is idempotent, which is a minor gap given destructiveHint=true is already declared.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information (mutation flag, purpose, parameter requirements/defaults, GraphQL/auth context), with the mutating nature front-loaded. No redundant phrasing.

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: what it creates, required vs optional inputs, the default, the permission required, and the return shape (union). It stops short of explaining side effects on existing meetings or error conditions, but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 restates teamId as required and name's default of 'Standup' but adds no format, ID source, or constraint information 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 (start) and resource (a new async Standup / Team Prompt meeting for a team), and distinguishes itself from the sibling start_checkin and start_retrospective tools. An agent can identify exactly which meeting type this creates without opening the schema.

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 implies usage context (starting a standup for a given team) but never states when to prefer this over start_checkin or start_retrospective, nor any preconditions such as team membership. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not explicitly guided.

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