finance_ic_memo_doc

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

The description adds a useful scoping detail — that the action runs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope — which addresses auth context. However, with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false in the annotations, the description never explains what the action actually does that is potentially destructive (e.g., creates or overwrites a memo document) or what side effects to expect. The behavioral disclosure is limited to routing mechanics.

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 compact and logically ordered — action, routing context, then args — with no wasted sentences. However, the leading sentence is near-tautological, and the brevity comes at the cost of essential substance like purpose and selection criteria.

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 and annotations, the description lacks the core information an agent needs: what the tool does, when to choose it among roughly one hundred finance_* siblings, and what the structured inputs should contain. The dispatch/scope context and generic arg definitions are not enough to make it safely selectable and invocable, especially with a destructive hint attached.

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 bears the full burden, but it only offers boilerplate: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These generic definitions would apply to any domain-agent dispatcher action and say nothing specific to finance_ic_memo_doc, such as what fields the inputs JSON accepts or what constitutes a valid message for this action.

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 `finance_ic_memo_doc`', which is essentially circular — the resource named is the tool's own name, so it never reveals what an 'IC memo doc' is or what outcome it produces. It adds routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no actual purpose, leaving the agent to guess that 'IC' means investment committee. It also fails to distinguish itself from the nearly identically-named sibling `finance_investment_committee_memo`.

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 this tool versus alternatives like `finance_investment_committee_memo`, `dispatch_domain_agent`, or `finance_chat`. The description mentions only that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is a mechanism, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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