gtm_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description is not required to repeat that. However, the description adds only a vague note about routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, without explaining side effects, potential data mutations, or other behavioral consequences beyond that minimal context.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short routing note, and a clear parameter list. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning full marks for efficiency and organization.

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?

The description omits crucial contextual details such as what the action returns, how the output is structured, error scenarios, or any usage prerequisites. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or explain what the agent can expect from invoking this tool, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 description provides brief explanations for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning over the bare schema (which has no descriptions), but it lacks constraints, format details, or examples, and does not distinguish inputs from message in terms of usage or priority.

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 that the tool runs a specific GTM domain agent action (plan_domain_intelligence) and routes through the platform's dispatcher under defined scopes. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like brain_plan_domain_intelligence or dispatch_domain_agent.

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 only states what the tool does (runs an action) and its routing context, but offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling domain-action tools.

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