it_ops_generate_iac

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

The description adds useful context about dispatcher routing and tenant/company scoping. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent is aware this is not a safe read-only operation. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose what side effects the invoked action may have.

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 core purpose, and uses a clear Args list. No filler sentences are present.

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?

This is a high-complexity invocation tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But the description omits what the generate_iac action accomplishes, what the inputs should contain, and which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent lacks enough context to reliably pick or invoke this tool.

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 must compensate. It does provide minimal semantics: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, it does not elaborate on the expected structure of the JSON or what kinds of inputs the action accepts, so the compensation is only partial.

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 it_ops domain agent action `generate_iac`', which names a specific verb and resource. However, it never explains what 'generate_iac' actually does or how it differs from related siblings like it_ops_plan_iac or it_ops_open_iac_pr.

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?

The description only explains routing mechanics ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'). It gives no guidance on when to call this tool instead of related alternatives such as it_ops_plan_iac, it_ops_open_iac_pr, 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.