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 that specialists are currently deterministic stubs (with future LLM-backed versions transparently replacing them) and that each request creates an approval-gated action. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 fairly long and contains some redundancy with the schema (e.g., listing kind-specific brief fields). While it is front-loaded with the main purpose, it could be more concise. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not excellent conciseness.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the workflow (creates approval-gated action), mentions grounding via runId, and hints at the return value (structured briefs/plans/drafts). However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or the role of workspaceId, which prevents a perfect score.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context (e.g., explaining the purpose of autoCreateAction and runId), but largely restates the schema's descriptions, especially for the 'brief' object. The added value is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('delegate to a specialist agent') and specifies the resource (specialist tasks). It explicitly lists the kinds of tasks it handles (design, video, research, outreach, seo, analytics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'chieflab_list_specialists' which only lists specialists.

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 explicitly says 'USE WHEN the launch needs more than copy' and enumerates the specific kinds of requests. While it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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