commerce_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The description adds that the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and runs under JWT, tenant, and company scope — auth and routing context not present in the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the destructiveHint=true side-effect profile or what the action might change. The description does not contradict annotations, but its added behavioral context is modest.

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 short and front-loaded with the action to run, and the args list is compact. There is minimal filler except the first sentence restating the tool name, and the routing and args sections are placed sensibly. It earns its length but is not as tight as a fully optimized description.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description still fails to state what plan_domain_intelligence actually does or what effect it has in the commerce domain. It omits the core semantic and usage context, so an agent cannot reliably decide whether this tool is relevant. The routing and auth details are present, but they do not compensate for the missing purpose and side-effect transparency.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It defines message as 'Free-text objective for the action' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which gives basic format and purpose. Yet it provides no detail on the expected structure or examples for the inputs JSON, making it superficially helpful but shallow.

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 opens with 'Run the commerce domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence,' which essentially restates the tool name and does not explain what the action actually accomplishes. The remaining sentences describe routing and auth scope, not the semantic purpose of 'plan_domain_intelligence.' It fails to distinguish the commerce variant from the many sibling plan_domain_intelligence tool beyond the domain qualifier.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commerce_chat, dispatch_domain_agent, or other domain-specific plan_domain_intelligence tools. It gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; the routing/scoping sentence offers execution context but no selection guidance.

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