it_ops_unit_economics

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating action. The description adds useful operational context about dispatcher routing and JWT/tenant/company scoping, but it does not describe the nature of the destructive effects or what state changes may occur. There is no contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the primary action and keeps parameter documentation to a brief two-item list. Every sentence contributes either routing, scoping, or parameter meaning, with no filler. It is compact but slightly vague because the core domain purpose is missing.

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 the output schema, the description omits the core domain semantics of unit economics, the expected input JSON format, and any warning about destructive side effects. For an open, free-text tool with zero required parameters, this leaves the agent guessing both when to call it and what to pass. The routing and scoping note is not enough to make the tool safely invocable.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, which partially compensates for the schema gap. However, it does not suggest what structured inputs the unit_economics action accepts or how to format them.

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 concrete operation ('Run the it_ops domain agent action unit_economics') and adds a routing detail, but it never explains what unit economics means or what the action actually computes or returns. It is better than a pure tautology, but an agent still cannot tell what value this tool produces or how it differs from sibling company_unit_economics without guessing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternative tool names, and no exclusionary conditions. The only usage hint is that it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher, which describes mechanics rather than selection criteria. An agent must infer when unit_economics is the correct action to invoke.

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