demo_script_builder

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool includes discovery questions, feature-to-value mapping, and objection handling, giving insight into output content. But it does not state whether it's read-only or destructive, or if it requires specific permissions, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and each sentence earns its place by outlining key components, making it highly concise and structured.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details for fully informing an agent. It omits aspects like attendee roles, competitor context, and desired outcome, which are covered only in the schema. While adequate for selection, it falls short for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It aligns with parameters like primary_audience and demo_type through phrases like 'tailored to specific personas,' but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 creates outcome-focused demo scripts tailored to personas and use cases, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deal_strategy_coach or discovery_question_bank, which have overlapping purposes.

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 use when creating a demo script for specific personas, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings, such as champion_enablement_kit for building internal champions.

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