get_mutation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful guarantee: reconciliation performs a fresh read and never repeats a write, which tells the agent the tool is non-destructive even in reconcile mode. However, it never explains what the default (non-reconcile) path returns — cached/stale status? — nor any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the reconciliation caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on a required parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the status payload looks like, how to obtain operationId, or how reconcile interacts with the default read.

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 0% for two parameters. The description partially compensates for 'reconcile' by explaining its effect, but says nothing about 'operationId' (required), its format, or where an agent obtains it, even though the schema only supplies a regex pattern.

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 (read durable mutation status) and adds a qualifier about reconciliation semantics. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic CRUD siblings, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling get_mcp_status, and 'mutation' is used without defining which subsystem's mutations are in scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when to poll vs. wait, or when to set reconcile=true vs. false. The mention of what reconciliation does hints at a mode of use but never states the condition that should select it.

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