it_ops_plan_iteration

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

The description discloses that routing occurs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds minor auth-context transparency. However, it says nothing about side effects, outcomes, or the destructive nature flagged by `destructiveHint=true`, leaving important behavioral characteristics undisclosed.

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 and free of fluff, with a clear Args section that labels each parameter. The preamble is slightly redundant (stating the action and then the routing), 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?

For a potentially destructive domain-agent dispatch tool, the description is thin: it omits the intended workflow context, what a planning iteration produces, and how it relates to the broader it_ops toolset. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the operational context is insufficient.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does add brief semantics—'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string—but 'structured inputs' is underspecified and does not clarify what structure or fields 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 names a specific domain-agent action (`plan_iteration`) and states it routes through a dispatcher, which distinguishes it from the `it_ops_live_*` sibling integrations. However, what 'plan an iteration' actually accomplishes—its inputs, outputs, and effect—is left undefined, so the core purpose remains vague.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only signal is an implicit contrast with the live-integration siblings (`it_ops_live_jira`, `it_ops_live_slack`), but the description never states conditions under which an agent should choose this tool.

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