gtm_intelligence_share

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false; the description does not contradict them. It adds scoping context (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose side effects such as what gets shared externally or whether the action is irreversible.

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 the Args section is clearly formatted, but the opening sentence is tautological and could be removed without losing information. The routing context is useful, so overall structure is acceptable but not maximally lean.

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 destructive, non-idempotent action, the description omits the core 'what does sharing do' context and any input contract for the JSON. The output schema and annotations cover some gaps, but an agent still cannot confidently decide when to invoke this or what effects to expect.

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 Args section helps by defining message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. However, 'structured inputs for the action' is vague and does not enumerate the expected structure, leaving the agent to guess what keys the JSON should contain.

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 opens with 'Run the gtm domain agent action `gtm_intelligence_share`', which only restates the tool name and gives no actual behavior. 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' explains mechanism, not what sharing GTM intelligence does or produces, so it does not distinguish this from other gtm_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this action versus alternatives like gtm_chat, gtm_plan_domain_intelligence, or dispatch_domain_agent. The description only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is execution context rather than selection guidance.

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