intuit_execute_approved_action

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

The description adds useful context about authorization scope ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and the dispatcher path, which goes beyond the structured annotations. Destructive and open-world traits are already covered by annotations, though side effects are not elaborated.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and has a clean Args list; no sentence is wasted. The first sentence partly repeats the tool name, which keeps it from a 5.

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 combination of annotations and output schema covers destructive behavior and returns, but the description does not explain the approval prerequisite or how to identify the approved action to execute. It is minimally adequate for a two-optional-param tool, but not complete.

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 must compensate, and it does provide basic one-line meanings for 'message' and 'inputs.' However, it omits requiredness, examples, expected JSON keys, and the relationship between the two parameters, leaving ambiguity for a tool where neither parameter is required.

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 specific verb ('Run') and names the Intuit domain agent action, but it largely restates the tool name and never explains what executing an approved action actually does or what an 'approved action' is. It does not distinguish this from sibling execution tools such as stripe_execute_approved 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of a prerequisite approval state or workflow. The routing/scoping sentence describes mechanism, not selection criteria.

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