mkt_orchestrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this is read-only and will not assemble a team, execute, or publish. It says nothing about the shape of the returned orchestration, whether it is deterministic, or what happens with incomplete product data, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the mode (只读编排) front-loaded followed by the selection scope and the exclusion. No filler, though the density of the clause chain makes it slightly harder to parse than a split into two short sentences.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema coverage, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema make this a complex tool, yet the description explains neither the three optional inputs nor what an orchestration result contains. For a selection/planning tool whose value is the chosen role handoff structure, this is significantly under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 产品/目标/任务 to product/goal/task, but gives no meaning for motion, channel, or audience (half the parameters) and no format guidance for the nested product object.

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 names a specific verb (编排/选择) and concrete outputs (岗位组合、交付物、交接、表达方式) driven by product/goal/task, which is far more than a title restatement. It does not differentiate itself from the many adjacent siblings such as mkt_workflow, mkt_gtm_design, or mkt_sprint_plan, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate on the description alone.

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 phrase 不自动组队执行或发布 gives an explicit when-not boundary: it is planning/selection only, not execution or publishing. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states the positive trigger condition versus mkt_workflow or mkt_goal_plan, so the routing signal is only implied.

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