gtm_go_to_market_plan

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent; the description adds the useful scoping detail that execution happens under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not explain what side effects or changes the go_to_market_plan action produces, so some behavioral burden remains.

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 short, starts with the action, and uses a clean Args list with no filler. It could have used the space to explain purpose instead of dispatcher routing, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Despite an output schema covering return values, the description leaves out the core behavior of the GTM plan action, when to call it among GTM siblings, and the structure of the inputs JSON. For a destructive, non-idempotent domain action this is an incomplete picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section adds at least one-line semantics: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. It does not specify allowed JSON shape, example keys, or how inputs interact with message, which is a notable gap for the only means of parameter documentation.

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 only "Run the gtm domain agent action go_to_market_plan," which mostly restates the tool name and gives no concrete outcome or resource that the tool acts on. The phrase "Free-text objective" hints at planning, but nothing states that it creates, updates, or produces a go-to-market plan, nor differentiates it from sibling gtm 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present, and no alternative tools are named despite siblings like gtm_launch_coordination and gtm_market_entry_analysis. The only contextual clue is that the action takes a free-text objective, leaving usage to inference.

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