impact_translate_execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'plan', which implies an output but does not describe side effects, required inputs, rate limits, or what the plan looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is acceptable, but the lack of informative content prevents a higher score.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It barely explains the tool's purpose, provides no usage context, and offers no clarity on expected outputs or outcomes. This is a minimal placeholder rather than a helpful description.

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 schema fully explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the primary action ('Plan tactical deployment across channels') and a phase identifier ('T phase'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on other phases like 'identify champions' or 'anchor market'. However, the scope is somewhat vague without additional details on what the deployment plan entails.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'T phase' hint is cryptic and does not explain the tool's role in the broader workflow or when it should be invoked instead of siblings.

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