customer_success_cs_agentic_plan

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

The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, adding context about authentication and routing. However, it does not elaborate on the action's side effects or destructive nature, though the annotations already flag it as destructive and open-world.

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 and to the point, starting with the action name and purpose, followed by brief parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-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 the tool's simplicity with two optional string parameters, the description covers its purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the output, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. There is no mention of use cases, but that falls under usage guidelines.

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 explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string with structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which had no descriptions for these fields.

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 runs the 'cs_agentic_plan' action in the customer_success domain. It identifies the specific resource and action, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, such as 'dispatch_domain_agent' or other domain-specific actions. It lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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