customer_success_expansion_playbook

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

Annotations already communicate that this is potentially destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful context about execution being scoped under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what kind of expansion work is performed.

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, front-loaded with the action name, and organized with an Args section. The routing sentence is useful context and the parameter lines add meaning without unnecessary bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the tool's actual business behavior, expected input shape, and relationship to sibling customer_success actions are left implicit, making this only minimally adequate for correct invocation.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which is helpful, but it does not explain what structured inputs `expansion_playbook` expects or how they should be formatted.

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 states that the tool runs the `expansion_playbook` action in the customer_success domain, but it never explains what the playbook actually does or produces. This is clearer than a pure tautology, yet a selecting agent would still have to infer the action's purpose from its name.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative domain-agent actions or the generic `dispatch_domain_agent` sibling. The description only mentions routing and scoping, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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