product_chat

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is available structurally. The description adds useful routing context ("under your JWT, tenant, and company scope") but does not explain what side effects a chat action may trigger or what kinds of changes it may make, so the added behavioral transparency is limited.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by one sentence of scoping context and a minimal Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and parameter explanation, the description is minimally viable for invoking the tool. However, it lacks guidance on when to use product_chat versus the large set of sibling domain-chat tools, and it does not clarify the relationship to dispatch_domain_agent or describe expected behavior from a chat action.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: message is the "free-text objective" and inputs is an "Optional JSON string of structured inputs." This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names and defaults, though it stops short of giving examples or detailed formats.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Run the product domain agent action `chat`," which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like commerce_chat, crm_chat, and dispatch_domain_agent. The additional scoping detail about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It only states what the tool does and its arguments; no competing tools are named and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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