it_ops_plan_domain_intelligence

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds some useful context by noting that the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects the destructive 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 main call, and uses a clear Args section. There is no wasted prose, though the brevity comes at the cost of purpose clarity.

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 the large sibling set and the destructive annotation, the description is incomplete for safe and correct selection. It does not explain what plan_domain_intelligence yields, when it is appropriate, or what inputs are valid; an agent would likely need to inspect other tools or schemas to act confidently.

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 burden. It does explain both parameters at a basic level: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, 'structured inputs for the action' is vague and does not clarify what fields or structures are expected.

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 reads 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`', which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what planning domain intelligence actually does or produces. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling `<domain>_plan_domain_intelligence` tools, such as finance_plan_domain_intelligence or coding_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 the numerous sibling domain-intelligence planning tools. The mention of routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope explains context but not selection criteria, alternatives, or exclusions.

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