it_ops_requirements_capture

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that the action routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which helps an agent understand execution context. However, it does not explain what side effects or destructive behavior the requirements_capture action may have, so the description only mildly supplements the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with the core action, adds one sentence about routing/scope, and then provides a short Args list. There is no redundant prose, and every sentence earns its place.

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 though the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description is not complete enough for safe and correct use. It never describes what the requirements_capture action does, what constitutes a valid objective, what structured inputs are expected, or why the tool is flagged destructive. In a large sibling list full of similar it_ops wrappers, this is a significant 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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain both parameters: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is useful but still vague—there are no examples, allowed keys, or expected structure for the JSON string, leaving the agent to guess what 'structured inputs' should contain.

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 primarily restates the tool name: 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `requirements_capture`.' It does not explain what capturing requirements actually accomplishes, what inputs are expected semantically, or what outcome the agent should expect. It adds routing/scope details but no behavioral purpose, so it reads more as a tautological wrapper than a clear functional description.

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 alternatives such as it_ops_product_requirements_intake or other it_ops_* actions. The phrase 'Free-text objective for the action' vaguely implies a use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated. An agent cannot determine when this tool should be selected over a sibling.

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