glm_5_orchestrate_project_task

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

With no annotations, the description bears full weight. It discloses key behaviors: it creates plans, is role-specific, dependency-aware, and requires approval for file mutations. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, output format, or what happens to existing plans.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff. Could expand without harming conciseness, but it is efficient for the given information.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not cover return values, lifecycle, role interactions, or any behavioral expectations beyond the non-mutation note. Significant gaps remain for effective use.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. It does not explain 'mode', 'roles', 'objective', etc., leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 creates an auditable, role-specific, dependency-aware development plan/job. It uses a specific verb ('create') and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'plan_code_change' or 'create_workflow', leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes it never mutates files without approval, which hints at a safety condition but does not provide context for selection among siblings.

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