Reconcile meeting notes against the graph

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Suggestions only — pinch never writes', indicating read-only nature. It also implies the tool requires preprocessed input. No contradictions.

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 efficient: four sentences covering purpose, behavioral constraints, and parameter details with no redundant words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description implies output are suggestions, but doesn't specify structure. It covers input, behavior, and parameter format adequately for a reconciliation tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining repo_path's purpose ('enables code-area grounding') and framing items as 'blockers, ticket refs, feature/bug mentions', which clarifies the schema's discriminated union.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reconciles structured items from meeting notes against a Linear dependency graph, specifying the verb (reconcile) and resource (notes vs graph). It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_blockers' by targeting extracted items.

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 explains when to use ('extraction is the client's job') and when not ('pinch never writes; use the Linear MCP to act'). It also clarifies parameter format (project_id accepts name/slug/UUID). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings.

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