product_roadmap_prioritize

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

Annotations already communicate destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds modest context by noting the call is scoped to the caller's JWT, tenant, and company and routed through a domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not disclose what the action changes, e.g., whether it modifies priorities or returns a proposal.

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 and organized with an Args section. The opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and the routing sentence adds implementation detail, but there is no fluff and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

For a destructive, free-form domain-agent action with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks the core purpose, expected content for 'inputs', and any guidance on when to choose this tool. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this description alone.

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 define the parameters itself, and it does so minimally: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but leaves the structure and expectations of 'inputs' entirely opaque, forcing the agent to guess what content the action accepts.

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 statement, 'Run the product domain agent action `roadmap_prioritize`', essentially restates the tool name and adds routing mechanics rather than explaining what the action does. It never says that the tool prioritizes roadmaps or what outcome it produces, leaving the agent with only the name as a clue.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like product_roadmap_plan or product_chat. The only contextual detail is the JWT/tenant/company scoping, which describes authorization boundaries, not invocation conditions.

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