intuit_writeback_plan

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which indicates auth requirements, but does not specify whether the action is destructive, what side effects occur, or any limitations. For a writeback action, one would expect mutation but it is not explicitly stated.

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, with two sentences and a list of args. It front-loads the purpose. The routing information could be more compact, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description fails to explain what the writeback_plan action actually accomplishes in business terms. The agent is left without understanding the context or when to invoke this tool, making it incomplete for informed use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. While this adds some meaning beyond the parameter names, it lacks detail on expected formats, examples, or constraints. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the weak semantics lower it.

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 it runs the 'writeback_plan' domain agent action, specifying the verb ('run') and the resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling intuit_* tools, which all appear to be similar domain agent actions.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, business context, or when not to use it. The description simply says to run the action without any decision support.

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