impact_craft_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool creates, but does not mention side effects, return values, prerequisite conditions, or whether this is a read-only generation. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 required parameters.

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 extremely concise, a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning its place. However, the cryptic 'C phase' adds ambiguity without explanation, slightly reducing clarity.

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 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It only provides a brief action phrase and a cryptic phase reference, lacking details on what the output looks like, how it fits into the broader process, or any operational context.

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 provides 100% coverage with simple descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but does not need to since the schema already documents each property clearly.

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 action ('Create positioning statements and message architecture') and specifies the resource. The '(C phase)' hints at a process step, providing some differentiation from sibling tools, though the meaning of 'C phase' is not explained.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is '(C phase)', which implies a sequencing but is not explicit. No exclusions or alternative tool references are present.

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