marketing_brief

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns a workflow and does not produce marketing content, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially implied.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and output, the second clarifies the tool's role. Well-structured and efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('ordered workflow') and purpose. It does not cover edge cases or errors, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 100% with parameter descriptions already providing meaning (e.g., deliverables subset). The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 it 'Assemble a product-marketing brief' and returns an 'ordered workflow', which is specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling marketing tools that focus on individual components (e.g., marketing_get_positioning) by emphasizing a holistic planning workflow.

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 getting a structured plan ('routes the work'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual marketing tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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