customer_success_churn_risk_scan

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is non-readonly, non-idempotent, and destructive. The description adds no further context about side effects, data access, or potential consequences, though the annotations lower the bar for disclosure.

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 brief and well-structured, with no unnecessary information. It provides the essential purpose and parameter hints in a compact form.

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 lacks details about output format, side-effect warnings, example usage, and how the free-text objective maps to concrete behavior. While it is a domain action, the description is thin for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly.

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 provides minimal one-line meanings for 'message' and 'inputs', but schema coverage is 0% and there are no examples or details about expected input structure or how the two parameters interact.

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 that this tool runs the customer_success domain agent action churn_risk_scan and identifies its routing mechanism. It is distinguishable from generic dispatch tools, though it does not explain what the churn risk scan actually does.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other domain actions or the generic dispatch_domain_agent sibling. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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