intuit_controller_review

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling a mutating operation, but the description adds no disclosure of what is changed or what consequences follow. The only added context is dispatcher routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is marginal. The description does not contradict the annotations, so no conflict flag, but it adds little behavioral value beyond them.

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 — a lead sentence, one routing sentence, and a clean Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While somewhat boilerplate, every line earns its place.

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?

As a generic dispatcher wrapper, the tool's usability depends on explaining what controller_review does and when to choose it among the large intuit_* sibling family; the description does neither. With 0% schema parameter coverage, the two args remain underspecified. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the core decision context is missing.

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 is the only semantic source for the two parameters. It labels message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults. However, the semantics are vague — no guidance on what a good objective contains or what keys the inputs JSON supports.

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 states a verb and resource ('Run the intuit domain agent action controller_review') and the routing mechanism, but never says what controller_review actually accomplishes. It borders on tautology — 'run the action controller_review' restates the tool name — and gives an agent no way to distinguish it functionally from siblings like intuit_controller_snapshot or intuit_controller_action.

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 any alternative. It never mentions the many intuit_* siblings, dispatch_domain_agent, or invoke_tool, and provides no scenario context. The JWT/tenant/company routing sentence is procedural mechanics, not usage guidance.

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