_mcp_onboard_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies creation ('onboard', 'create workspace') but does not specify any behavioral traits such as destructiveness, required permissions, or side effects.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but lacks structured detail such as parameter roles or usage context. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain required vs. optional parameters, expected input format, or return value, making it incomplete for the complexity of onboarding a client.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'company info' vaguely corresponding to the 'company' parameter. The 'needs' parameter remains unexplained, and 'base_model' and 'contact_email' are omitted entirely, failing to add meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Onboard a new client: collect company info and create the project workspace,' which clearly indicates the verb (onboard) and resource (client). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like _mcp_create_project_structure, which may also create a workspace, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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