intuit_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already carry the destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false signals, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context that invocation routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what state changes, side effects, or external actions may occur, so transparency remains limited.

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, front-loaded with the invocation statement, and uses a clear Args section. There is no unnecessary verbiage beyond the tautological first line, and both parameters are listed in an easily parseable format.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, but the core action semantics are missing. Given the enormous sibling list and the generic name, the agent is not told what plan_domain_intelligence is for, what inputs to provide, or when invoking it is appropriate. This is a significant completeness gap for a non-trivial, destructive-flagged action.

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 carries the parameter-semantics burden. It does add meaning by labeling message as a 'Free-text objective' and inputs as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which is more than the schema provides. However, it does not explain what the structured inputs should contain, what format the objective should take, or how the two parameters interact.

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 intuit domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It identifies the operation and resource, but it never explains what plan_domain_intelligence actually does or what outcome the agent should expect. It also does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling variants named *_plan_domain_intelligence.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent or the other domain-specific plan_domain_intelligence tools. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scope explains authorization, not selection context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.

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