glm_5_execute_development_task

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

The description explicitly states 'No mutation occurs automatically', which is a critical behavioral trait not covered by annotations (none provided). However, it omits many other important behaviors like approval flows, side effects of creating a job, and how different modes affect execution.

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 only two sentences, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (9 params, many siblings), it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 description is incomplete given the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain the orchestration workflow, parameter relationships, or expected outcomes. The sibling list is long but the description itself provides insufficient context.

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 description coverage, the description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. It doesn't explain 'mode', 'roles', 'maxAgentRuns', or other fields. The agent is left to infer parameter meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states the tool creates an 'auditable development orchestration plan' using a 'safe development workflow surface', which clearly indicates its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'glm_5_plan_code_change' or 'glm_5_orchestrate_project_task', so it's not a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. The only hint is 'No mutation occurs automatically', which implies safety but doesn't specify alternatives or prerequisites. The agent lacks context for correct invocation.

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