intuit_writeback_plan

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

Annotations already convey that this is non-read-only and destructive, so the description is not required to restate that. It does add useful auth/scoping context by saying the action runs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not go further to say what side effects occur or what happens to upstream Intuit records.

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 front-loads the action name, followed by routing context and parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant prose.

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?

For a domain-action wrapper among hundreds of siblings, the description omits the core semantic context: what writeback_plan actually does and when an agent should choose it. The output schema may cover return values, but it cannot compensate for the missing problem-domain meaning that would let an agent select this tool correctly.

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 Args section provides the only semantic hints: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This minimally compensates for the bare schema, but it leaves ambiguous what keys the JSON should contain, how message and inputs combine, and what a valid invocation looks like.

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 opening sentence 'Run the intuit domain agent action `writeback_plan`' essentially restates the tool name, and the rest of the description is about transport/dispatch mechanics rather than what the action accomplishes. There is no indication of what gets written back, what plan is involved, or what outcome the agent should expect, so it fails to distinguish this from sibling intuit_* actions like intuit_cash_application_plan.

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 addresses when to choose this tool versus alternatives; it only says it 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.' There are no excluded cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would direct an agent to writeback_plan over intuit_execute_approved_action or dispatch_domain_agent.

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