salesforce_plan_domain_intelligence

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is externally declared. The description adds useful context by noting that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not describe actual side effects or why the action is classified as destructive.

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, front-loaded with the action being run, and followed by routing context and parameter documentation. There is no filler or redundant re-explanation of the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not required. However, the description is thin for a tool that wraps an opaque domain-agent action: it does not say what 'plan domain intelligence' does, which Salesforce prerequisites may exist, or when to choose this over generic dispatch_domain_agent. The routing and scope context help, but the overall semantic purpose remains vague.

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 carries the burden. It covers both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is basic but sufficient for the two simple string parameters, though it lacks an example or details about the expected JSON structure.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Run the salesforce domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence.' It clearly identifies the Salesforce domain, which separates it from many sibling domain-intelligence tools. However, it does not explain what the action actually accomplishes or differentiate it from the generic dispatch_domain_agent.

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 use case is implied by the name and by the phrase 'salesforce domain agent action,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent or other domain-specific plan_domain_intelligence tools, leaving selection mostly to inference.

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