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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the call tracks user progress, but it never says whether records are per-user or per-organization, whether progress advances monotonically, or whether recording an earlier enum value regresses progress. Those gaps matter for a state-recording write.

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?

It is one sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing 'the step ... that is starting' is slightly awkward, but nothing is wasted.

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 an idempotent write that records progress, the description leaves key operational context missing: what happens if a later state is recorded before earlier ones, whether earlier states can be re-recorded, and whether progress is per-user or per-organization. Annotations and the single-parameter schema do not fill those gaps.

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 supplies the meaning of the single parameter: its value is the onboarding step that is starting. With only one parameter and a self-explanatory enum, this framing is enough to interpret state correctly without additional field documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: recording the onboarding step that is starting, to track user progress. It distinguishes this from write siblings like create_dataset and edit_dashboards by making clear it is progress tracking for onboarding, not dataset or dashboard mutation.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when beginning an onboarding step. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling get_onboarding_guide (which an agent could confuse with this), and no statement about calling before versus after performing the step or how to handle retries.

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