gtm_launch_coordination

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not disclose behavioral traits like mutability, side effects, authorization needs beyond standard scoping, or rate limits. The actual effect of the action is not described.

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 concise at four sentences, but the second sentence about routing is implementation detail that may not be agent-essential. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be more agent-friendly by focusing on what the action does rather than how it routes.

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 presence of an output schema (signal true) for return values, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling, or typical usage context. For a domain agent action runner, more context about the launch coordination action would be helpful.

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 coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies purpose beyond the schema titles, but lacks format details or constraints on the JSON.

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 clearly states 'Run the gtm domain agent action `launch_coordination`', specifying the action name and resource. It is distinct from siblings by naming the action, but does not contrast with similar tools like gtm_launch_readiness or gtm_go_to_market_plan.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is authentication context, not usage criteria. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' explanation.

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