mutual_action_plan_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'generates' plans and 'creates alignment', but it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies existing records. For a generative tool with no annotation safety signals, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the tool's return value or expected output format. It also lacks guidance on how required vs optional parameters interact. The tool's complexity demands more 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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, mentioning 'milestones, owners, and dates' but not connecting these to specific parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('collaborative close plans'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'account_plan_builder' by focusing specifically on close plans with milestones, owners, and dates.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into the sales process compared to other tools.

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