Onboard this agent (headless)

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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that identity/app wallets are created if missing, that an API key is never minted, and that no funds move despite app_wallet_fund appearing in the sequence. This resolves the tension between the mutation hint and the 'moves no funds' guarantee, consistent with idempotentHint=true. It stops short of a 5 only because failure/auth specifics beyond 'stops and says which' are unspecified.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the ordered pipeline and the most decision-relevant constraint ('stop at the first step that needs the operator') appears near the end. The arrow notation compresses the sequence efficiently with no 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 complex multi-step orchestrator with no output schema, the description covers the ordering, the stopping condition, idempotent creation of missing wallets, and the two key side-effect negatives. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present; only the exact returned shape/status detail is left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully names the inputs consumed internally (set_profile {displayName}, avatar default behavior) even though the schema is empty, adding a little signal about what the operator must supply.

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 ('Run the headless onboarding') and enumerates the exact ordered sequence of operations it performs, ending with explicit scope boundaries ('never mints an API key', 'Moves no funds'). An agent can distinguish this orchestrator from its sibling step tools (create_identity_wallet, create_app_wallet, set_profile) 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?

Clearly conveys when to use it (headless onboarding) and how it behaves at the boundary ('stop at the first step that needs the operator, saying which'). It implicitly supersedes the individual step siblings but never states that alternative explicitly, 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.