retention_playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says the tool 'Generate[s]' and 'save playbooks with email templates', indicating write/save behavior. It also lists what outputs to expect (health score model, playbooks, alerts, metrics). However, it does not discuss permissions, reversibility of saves, or side effects beyond saving. The core behavioral traits are transparent enough for an agent to understand this is a generation tool with save capability.

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, information-dense sentence that uses a colon to introduce a list of features. It front-loads the domain ('Retention Strategy Framework') and each clause adds specific value. While it enumerates multiple components, it remains concise and does not contain filler or redundant statements.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core outputs and components well: health score model, playbooks by segment, early warning alerts, saved playbooks, and success metrics. The fully documented schema handles parameter needs. The description does not specify the response format or delivery mechanism, but for a framework generation tool, this is adequate contextual detail.

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 100%, so the parameters themselves are fully documented. The description aligns with parameters like customer_segment and churn_reasons but does not add extra format, syntax, or detailed constraints beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional parameter meaning is required.

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 with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('comprehensive retention system'), and enumerates distinct deliverables (health score model, intervention playbooks, alerts, saved email templates, success metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other domains like PMF (pmf_scorecard) or launch planning (launch_commander).

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 used for retention strategy by labeling it 'Retention Strategy Framework', but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of preconditions, such as when churn is high or when to prefer another tool like crisis_planner. The usage context is clear but only implied, not explicitly stated.

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