gtm_launch_coordination

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds scope context but does not mention side effects or outcomes, so it provides only marginal additional transparency.

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 brief and well-structured, with a clear purpose line followed by parameter explanations. No redundant or filler content.

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?

It provides enough context to understand the tool's role as a scoped dispatcher with message and structured inputs. The expected output or concrete side effects are not described, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The Args section clearly explains `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string. This covers both parameters effectively even though the schema itself lacks descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it runs the `launch_coordination` action in the GTM domain agent. The sibling list is large, but the specific action name and routing description distinguish it from generic dispatch 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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It only describes the routing mechanism and scope, not the situations in which this tool is preferred over sibling tools.

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