it_ops_plan_iteration

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under the user's JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it creates or modifies resources), safety implications, or failure modes. The absence of read-only/destructive hints is a gap.

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 at three sentences plus an args list, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Run the it_ops domain agent action `plan_iteration`'). Every sentence contributes meaning without 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?

The description lacks sufficient context for a domain agent action. It does not explain what 'plan iteration' entails, what the output schema contains (despite an output schema existing), or how the inputs should be structured. The tool interacts with a dispatcher, but the description omits key details for correct usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the expected format or keys for 'inputs', limiting semantic value.

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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `plan_iteration`', specifying the verb and resource. It explains routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_plan_iac or it_ops_plan_domain_intelligence, leaving the exact meaning of 'plan iteration' ambiguous without context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The only context is the routing mechanism, which is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.

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