customer_success_plan_domain_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the routing mechanism and authentication context, but fails to describe the action's side effects, destructiveness, or what actually happens when the action runs. The phrase 'plan_domain_intelligence' is vague, leaving uncertainty about whether it is read-only or creates/modifies resources.

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, with two short paragraphs and a clear Args list. The first sentence immediately states the main action. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on what the action produces.

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 has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' accomplishes beyond running the action. An agent may need to understand the high-level purpose (e.g., generating strategic insights) to invoke it correctly. The description is minimally adequate but lacks conceptual depth.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds clear semantic value by explaining both parameters: message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This meaningfully extends beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 customer_success domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence', with a specific verb and resource. It avoids tautology and distinguishes itself from other domain intelligence tools through the domain prefix, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'coding_plan_domain_intelligence'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT scope, but does not specify the context or decision criteria for selecting this tool over other customer_success or domain intelligence tools.

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