succession_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the three-role architecture, that roles coordinate through graph state and forks, and crucially that the tool Writes memory and produces a Decision and Tasks. It omits cost/latency/reversibility and whether the memory write is idempotent, but the mutation behavior is clearly surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the architecture, then the usage trigger. The parenthetical breakdown of the three roles is dense but each clause adds distinguishing information. Only mild bloat from the architecturally detailed middle section.

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 complex, multi-role, memory-writing orchestrator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, and side effects well, but leaves the tenant parameter undocumented and says nothing about expected outputs, duration, or failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that 'person' is a single person, but the 'tenant' parameter is never mentioned at all, and no format, default behavior, or scoping semantics are given for either. Half the parameters remain semantically undefined.

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 ('Full succession review for one person') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by describing itself as an orchestrated multi-role workflow rather than a single primitive like successors or what_if_leaves. An agent can distinguish it from the individual analysis tools without opening a 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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('make a plan for X', 'succession plan') that map intent to this tool. It does not, however, name when NOT to use it or explicitly route the agent to siblings (successors, what_if_leaves, draft_actions) for smaller-scope requests, so the alternative-selection guidance is left implicit.

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