deep_research_synthesize

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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds modest context by stating the action routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, setting expectations about execution context and authorization. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 tight: two purposeful sentences in the main body plus terse per-parameter glosses. No filler, no repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, both-optional generic action dispatch tool, the mechanical details (what to pass, routing, scope) are adequately covered. However, the description never states what the synthesize action is expected to do or return, and the declared output schema is not summarized, so an agent cannot predict the outcome or judge success.

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 carries the burden, and it does add meaning beyond bare types: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This is useful but thin — it doesn't clarify what kind of objective or input shape is expected, how the two parameters relate, or what happens when both are empty.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Run the deep_research domain agent action `synthesize`'), so the immediate target is unambiguous. However, it never explains what synthesizing actually does or produces, and among a huge sibling set including dispatch_domain_agent and invoke_tool, the differentiation is only implicit through the tool name.

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 the many plausible alternatives (dispatch_domain_agent, brain_chat, rag_query, etc.). The second sentence only describes routing mechanics ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which concerns execution rather than selection.

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