finance_goal_execute_wave

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds no side-effect warnings or behavioral context. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but not what the action changes, executes, or affects. No contradiction, but no added transparency.

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 brief and uses a clear Args layout. It front-loads the action name and avoids unnecessary filler. Conciseness is good, though the content is too generic to be highly useful.

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 is not complete enough for an agent to safely or effectively invoke this tool. It lacks any explanation of what a 'wave' is, what executing one does, what inputs are expected, or what consequences occur. The tool is complex and destructive, but the context provided is almost entirely superficial.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description only adds 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is minimal and does not explain expected content, structure, keys, or required usage. It adds some meaning but far too little given the 0% schema coverage.

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 says 'Run the finance domain agent action' but never explains what 'goal_execute_wave' actually does. The resource name is opaque, and 'free-text objective' and 'structured inputs' are generic placeholders. It is not a complete tautology, but it fails to convey a concrete purpose.

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 alternatives. The routing detail about JWT, tenant, and company scope explains mechanics, not usage. No scenarios, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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