customer_success_churn_risk_scan

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 mentions routing through a dispatcher but fails to describe whether the tool reads, writes, or generates data, nor any side effects or safety traits.

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 concise at three sentences plus bullet points. It front-loads the action name and routing context. However, it could be better structured with a clear outcome statement.

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, the description omits what the scan returns or accomplishes. It lacks completeness for a tool with only two optional parameters, leaving the agent without a full picture.

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 description adds minimal meaning for both parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), which is useful given 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain how these inputs affect the action.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'customer_success domain agent action churn_risk_scan', making the tool's purpose apparent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_score_report by focusing on churn risk. However, it does not elaborate on what the scan entails, limiting specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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