orchestrate_objective

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions spawning an architect agent but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects occur (e.g., agent creation), or any required permissions. The cost-saving hint via foundationSessionId is only in the schema, not the description.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource ('spawn architect agent to coordinate').

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 tool that spawns an architect agent for multi-agent coordination, the description lacks crucial context: what the tool returns, how the coordination is performed, and any lifecycle implications. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose. All parameters are well-documented in the schema, so no credit for replication.

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 the tool spawns an architect agent to coordinate multi-agent objective completion. It distinguishes from siblings like spawn_agent (generic agent spawning) and orchestrate_objective_structured (structured version) by emphasizing coordination across multiple agents.

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?

The description implies use for multi-agent objectives but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as orchestrate_objective_structured or spawn_agent. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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