customer_success_nps_action_loop

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, and open-world, so the description is not required to restate those flags. It does add the behavioral note that execution is scoped through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company, but it does not disclose what side effects or destruction may occur.

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 and front-loaded with the action verb, followed by the routing context and a clean Args section. No filler sentences are present, though the routing sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

For an opaque action-loop tool with no domain-level explanation, the description is incomplete: it omits what the loop does, what inputs it expects in the JSON blob, what results look like, and when to choose it over sibling tools. The output-schema flag exists but is not shown, and the description does not compensate.

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?

Despite 0% schema-description coverage, the description covers both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string with a default. This is minimal but materially more informative than the bare schema, which only provides titles and defaults.

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 names the operation ('Run the customer_success domain agent action `nps_action_loop`') and adds that it goes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher, but it never states what an NPS action loop actually accomplishes. An agent could infer this is a domain-action invoker, but not what outcome to expect or how it differs from other customer_success actions.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many customer_success or dispatch-domain-agent alternatives. The routing sentence explains mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not the conditions that should trigger this action or any exclusions.

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