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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it explains the side effect (dashboard stops nudging) and the retry/idempotency behavior (each call re-executes without a key), which aligns with idempotentHint=false. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true applies or whether the completion state can be reverted, so the destructive profile the annotations declare is left unaddressed.

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?

Three short sentences with the step and verb front-loaded and no filler. "Hand it to the owner" is slightly idiomatic but adds human framing to the terminal action.

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 no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers the main behavior but omits what the agent gets back, what happens to the onboarding state on repeated calls, and why the call is flagged destructive. Enough to invoke correctly, not enough to invoke confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so both businessId and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, and the description's note about reusing an idempotencyKey on retry largely restates that. No additional format or defaulting detail beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Mark first-run setup finished" names a specific verb and resource (onboarding completion state) and frames it as the final step ("Step 12"). It is clearly distinct from siblings like ringkit_get_onboarding or ringkit_start_setup_chat, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 parenthetical "(the business has a number, or the owner chose to do it later)" gives a precondition for calling, and "Hand it to the owner" implies the terminal step of the flow. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools that read or restart onboarding.

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