gtm_intelligence_share

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

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavior but only mentions routing under JWT. It does not disclose side effects, whether data is read/written, or any required permissions beyond basic auth.

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?

Relatively concise, but the first sentence is redundant (repeats tool name). Could be more 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?

Given the tool's name suggests sharing intelligence, important context like recipients, confirmation, or side effects is missing. Has output schema but description ignores it.

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 description must define parameters. It labels 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding minimal meaning. Lacks specifics like what to put in message or example inputs.

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 only states 'Run the gtm domain agent action' which is almost a tautology. It does not explain what 'intelligence_share' means, unlike sibling tools that have clearer names and descriptions. The purpose is vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and does not reference sibling tools.

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