it_ops_product_requirements_intake

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

The description mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds security context. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the action actually does (e.g., creates a requirement record).

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers routing and parameters without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the 'product_requirements_intake' action does. The agent is left unaware of the action's core functionality, which is critical for a domain agent tool. This is a significant gap given the complexity and number of sibling tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This provides some semantics, but lacks detail on expected formats or examples.

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 the tool runs the 'product_requirements_intake' action, which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this action from sibling tools like 'it_ops_analysis_review' or 'it_ops_requirements_capture', relying solely on the action name for distinction.

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 among the many sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions.

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