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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it drafts a queue but does not execute without approval ('nothing fires without explicit human approval'). It mentions the return includes a signed reviewUrl and agentGuide block. However, it does not discuss error handling (e.g., invalid runId), rate limits, or authentication. Overall, it provides sufficient transparency for safe use.

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 a single paragraph that is well-structured. It starts with the alias and trigger condition, then explains the tool's function and output. It is detailed but not overly verbose. A bullet-point list could improve readability, but the current structure is adequate.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (all described) and no output schema. The description explains the return format ('draft queue + signed reviewUrl + the standard agentGuide block') and notes that actions land in awaiting_approval. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not detail the structure of the draft queue or agentGuide block, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the runId grounds the queue in 'this run's measurement + memory' and that horizon defaults to 'week (7-day mode)'. These contextual details help the agent select appropriate values.

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's purpose: 'turns one launch into a 7-day launch mode' by drafting a queue of follow-up actions. It specifies the trigger condition ('when the user has just published a launch...') and the output ('draft queue + signed reviewUrl + the standard agentGuide block'). The alias note ('chieflab_* alias of chiefmo_prepare_next_move') distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage conditions are provided: 'USE WHEN the user has just published a launch (or ≥24h post-launch) and asks 'what's next?', 'follow-up post?', 'iterate on this', 'plan day 2'. It describes the context (grounded in prior runId, brand voice, etc.) and that actions require human approval. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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