cmd_new_initiative

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the created structure (chain with a pre-typed six-stage funnel) and the initial stage, which goes beyond annotations. It does not state that the operation is irreversible or what permissions are needed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with the funnel detail following. The only minor waste is the redundant restatement that the funnel starts in Discovery immediately after listing Discovery first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any explanation of the three parameters (especially entity) and the irreversible nature of creating a chain, leaving the definition adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description says nothing about title, entity, or vision. 'Title' and 'vision' are semi-self-evident, but 'entity' is opaque and is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create initiative') and then enumerates the composite output: ticket + full-funnel chain + discovery declaration. That is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, name which sibling it is not (e.g. cmd_new_ticket or create_chain), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many create_* / cmd_new_* siblings. The note that it 'Starts in Discovery' hints at lifecycle context but never says what condition should lead an agent here rather than to cmd_new_ticket or create_chain.

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