it_ops_product_requirements_intake

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about execution being routed through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not describe side effects beyond the annotations or what happens after intake.

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 includes a compact Args block, but the opening sentence mostly repeats the tool name and adds little value. The routing context and parameter notes are useful, but the first sentence could be replaced with an actual explanation of the action's purpose.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema present, the description leaves the agent without a clear understanding of what product requirements intake involves, what inputs are valid, or when this action is appropriate. Given the large sibling list with many other it_ops intake and SDLC tools, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 defines message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which is more than the bare schema provides. Still, it gives no examples, no expected JSON structure, and no guidance on how the two parameters interact.

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 only 'Run the it_ops domain agent action product_requirements_intake', which essentially restates the tool name and tells the agent to execute it. It never explains what product requirements intake actually does, what outcome it produces, or how it differs from similar it_ops intake tools like it_ops_requirements_capture or it_ops_software_feedback_intake.

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 alternative intake or SDLC tools. The routing note about the domain-agent dispatcher describes internal mechanics but not selection criteria, and no exclusions or preferred alternatives are mentioned.

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