atlas_onboard_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create a new client profile') but does not disclose how duplicates are handled, whether the tool is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. This leaves important behavioral unknowns for an agent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the onboarding context adds useful direction without wasting 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?

The description correctly identifies purpose and onboarding position, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., client ID), which is important for orchestrating subsequent onboarding steps. Moderate gaps keep it at a minimum viable level.

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 fully documents each parameter (name, email, summary, background, goals_overview). The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, but it does not need to; the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new client profile for ATLAS advisory.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from profile updates, reads, and data ingestion siblings. The context 'first step in the onboarding process' further clarifies its role.

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 description provides clear context: it is the first step in onboarding, implying it should be called before other profile-related tools like atlas_update_profile or atlas_get_profile. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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