it_ops_rightsizing_recommendations

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

The description adds useful operational context not present in annotations: it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what the action may change or destroy, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.

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, scannable, and cleanly separates the action statement, routing context, and arguments. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks enough context for correct invocation: it does not define the domain purpose, expected message content, valid structured inputs, or side-effect risk. For a potentially destructive tool, 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only says 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds minimal meaning and leaves unclear what a useful message looks like, what JSON structure is expected, or how message and inputs combine.

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's main clause is 'Run the it_ops domain agent action rightsizing_recommendations', which largely restates the tool name without defining what rightsizing recommendations are or what outcome to expect. It adds routing/scope details, but an agent cannot tell what this tool actually accomplishes.

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 on when to choose this tool over siblings like it_ops_analyze_cost, it_ops_detect_waste, or it_ops_recommend_architecture. The description only explains routing and argument fields, not the situations that warrant calling this specific action.

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