partner_architect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the tool's output scope (framework components). However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or whether it is a read-only generation tool. The absence of safety details is a gap, but the detailed deliverables offer some transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses a colon to introduce a concise list of deliverables. Every element adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description plays a key role in explaining what the tool produces. It lists the main components of the framework, providing a good sense of the output, but it does not explain how the inputs (e.g., company, partner_types) map to these components. This is a minor gap for a complex design tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades the understanding.

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's purpose: 'Design complete partner program' with a specific verb, resource, and detailed scope (4-tier structure, commission model, enablement curriculum, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like pmf_scorecard and launch_commander, which focus on different business aspects.

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 the tool is for designing partner programs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the content, but it lacks explicit usage guidance.

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