coding_app_growth_loop_build

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

The annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not explain what side effects, mutations, or resources are affected. It adds only that the call routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is infrastructure context rather than behavioral disclosure. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description carries little of the behavioral burden.

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 compact and well-organized with an Args section that is easy to parse. The first line is tautological, but the overall structure is clean and front-loaded with the tool's invocation role. No unnecessary prose is present.

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 tool marked destructive and open-world with free-form arguments, the description is under-specified: it never explains what the growth loop build does, what inputs are expected, or how it should be chosen over related coding actions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the semantic and selection gaps remain significant.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide basic semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is more meaningful than the schema's bare titles and defaults. However, it does not explain what keys or structure the inputs JSON should contain, what a well-formed objective looks like, or any examples.

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 says 'Run the coding domain agent action `app_growth_loop_build`', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the action actually accomplishes. It does not clarify what an 'app growth loop build' is or how it is different from sibling actions like coding_website_growth_loop_build. The dispatcher and scope details explain routing, not purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference the closely related coding_website_growth_loop_build, coding_growth_loop_web_development, or any other coding action. The only context provided is the routing mechanism, which is not a usage criterion.

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