customer_success_expansion_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur. The behavioral detail is minimal.

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 moderately concise but includes implementation details (e.g., 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that may not be actionable. It could be streamlined to focus on user-facing purpose.

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 does not explain return values or the business outcome of the expansion playbook. Given the tool's complexity and many sibling tools, more context is needed for the agent to choose 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond parameter names. However, it lacks specifics on expected structure or format for 'inputs'.

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 'Run the customer_success domain agent action expansion_playbook', which identifies a specific verb and resource, but it does not clarify what the expansion playbook actually accomplishes. It distinguishes from sibling tools only by name, lacking unique differentiation.

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 alternatives (e.g., customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_renewal_pipeline). There are no exclusions or context cues for selection.

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