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

destructiveHint=true signals this is not a benign read, yet the description never explains what is destructive about it or what side effects (e.g. triggering automated follow-up communications) the enrollment causes. The follow-up example hints at downstream workflow effects, which is useful context, but the annotation's destructive claim is left unexplained.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the API path trailing where it does not obstruct reading. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, but the description omits what happens after enrollment (notifications, admin assignment effects) and any permission requirements. Adequate for invoking the tool, thin on consequences.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates that a step admin can optionally be assigned (mapping to assign_to) and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Put a person into a people-flow step') and even gives a concrete use case ('start a new guest's follow-up'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling elvanto_add_person_to_group, which an agent could easily confuse.

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 through the example ('start a new guest's follow-up') and the note that an admin can optionally be assigned, giving situational context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the add_person_to_group alternative.

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