finance_goal_replan

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

The description adds useful routing and authorization context ('domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and does not contradict annotations. However, with destructiveHint=true, it could have disclosed what the replanning action changes or overrides; that behavior is left to the annotation alone.

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 definition is compact and organized into action, routing context, and args with no filler. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it still front-loads the operation.

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 a domain-agent action with two optional parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this is incomplete: an agent still cannot tell what a replan actually does, what free-text objective should contain, or what JSON keys inputs expects. The output schema is present, but the input/selection side is under-specified compared to the rich sibling context.

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 must carry the burden. It gives basic semantic roles — message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' — which is more than the schema provides. But it stops short of specifying what structured inputs goal_replan accepts.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Run') and identifies the exact resource ('finance domain agent action goal_replan'), so an agent knows what to invoke. It does not explain what 'replan' does semantically or differentiate it from nearby finance_goal_* siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 given on when to use goal_replan versus finance_goal_plan, finance_goal_execute_wave, or finance_goal_record_task_result. The routing/scoping sentence is context, not a usage rule, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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