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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the operation is confirm-gated (preview unless confirmed) and the instance auto-completes once every step is DONE or SKIPPED. However, it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility of changes, or error conditions, so gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the gating fact, then the dependency, then the status semantics, then the auto-complete consequence. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: confirm gating, status meaning, key sourcing, and the auto-complete side effect. It lacks permission/auth and failure-mode context, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 25% (just `confirm`), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains what each status value means ('tick it off', 'skip it', 'reopen') and points to get_client_onboarding as the source of `stepKey`. It adds no meaning for `clientId` and does not elaborate on `confirm`, keeping it just below full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (set/mark) on a precise resource (one onboarding step's status), and orients the agent within the onboarding family by naming get_client_onboarding as the source of the step key. An agent can distinguish it from dismiss_client_onboarding, get_client_onboarding, and list_clients_needing_onboarding without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for the workflow: fetch the step `key` via get_client_onboarding first, then set the status. The status semantics (DONE/SKIPPED/PENDING) further imply when each mode applies. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer dismiss_client_onboarding over marking steps), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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