Ask all three advisers for contextual feedback

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behaviors: the service does not construct or edit the briefing, defaults are used automatically, overriding model or effort restarts only that provider's native session, and overrides are metadata never inserted into the prompt. This is substantial added context beyond the annotations, though rate limits and failure modes are unstated.

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?

Front-loads the core action and thread_key guidance, but several sentences restate or overlap (e.g. briefing content guidance spans multiple sentences, and 'Defaults are used automatically' plus the override paragraph could be tightened). Long but mostly earned; some redundancy around override semantics.

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?

The tool is a 6-parameter, open-world, non-idempotent fan-out with an output schema, so the description must cover creation, thread reuse, override scoping, and session restart semantics. It covers these well, though it leaves purpose, providers, and reset_thread unexplained and does not describe concurrency or failure behavior across providers.

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 the description must compensate. It defines briefing (self-contained, complete prompt/artifact/plan, exact question), thread_key (short, stable, topic-based, reuse in chat), provider_overrides (only when explicitly requested, format example, may contain model/effort, metadata only), and the restart behavior of model/effort changes. It does not explain purpose, providers, or reset_thread parameters.

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+resource: sends one self-contained briefing to Claude, Gemini, and Grok independently, and explicitly says the service does not construct or edit the briefing. Distinguishes itself from mastermind_exact and mastermind_reset_thread by describing the multi-advisor fan-out and the thread_key reuse pattern.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules: read current conversation context before calling, include the complete prompt/artifact/plan and decisions already made, do not anchor advisers with one another's responses unless the user asks. Also names reset_thread via the sibling mastermind_reset_thread indirectly and states thread_key must be created on first call and reused.

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