product_feature_adoption

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

The description mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope (JWT, tenant, company), which hints at authentication context but does not explain behavioral traits such as side effects, state changes, or whether the action is destructive. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint true, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the verb 'run', but it lacks substance and does not effectively organize the limited information. It is not verbose, but the brevity does not compensate for the lack of meaningful content.

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?

The description is extremely incomplete for the tool's complexity. It does not mention any output schema, return values, side effects, or error conditions. It also does not differentiate this tool from the large number of similar 'run' and 'action' tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no context on when or how to use it effectively.

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?

Both parameters 'message' and 'inputs' are described only as free-text with defaults, with no explanation of what they represent or how they are used. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it provides no semantic meaning for the parameters.

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 it 'Run the product domain agent action feature_adoption', which essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what the action actually does. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but not the intended function or result. There is no distinction from similar 'run' actions among the many siblings.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or any conditions that would make this tool preferable to another. No sibling references or usage context are given.

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