it_ops_open_iac_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some context about authorization, but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or has rate limits. The overall behavior beyond routing is opaque.

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 brief, readable, and well-structured. It starts with the primary purpose, explains the routing mechanism, and then lists the arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description does not provide enough context about expected outcomes or return values. It also fails to elaborate on the action's effect, which for a complex domain tool like opening a PR should include success indicators or side effects.

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 explains 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the schema's default titles. However, it lacks specifics on what constitutes valid inputs or how they affect the action.

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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `open_iac_pr`', which is somewhat tautological. It clarifies it's a domain agent action and mentions routing, but does not explicitly state that it opens an Infrastructure as Code pull request, making it less specific than ideal. Sibling tools like 'it_ops_plan_iac' and 'it_ops_generate_iac' suggest this tool is for PR creation, but the description does not differentiate.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description only mentions routing scope, which is not usage guidance. Given the many sibling tools, this omission makes it harder for an agent to select appropriately.

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