commerce_vendor_onboarding

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. Significant gaps remain.

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 three sentences plus two argument lines, front-loading the main action. It is concise with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value. Could slightly improve by providing more context without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema, return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and two optional parameters, the description should provide more context about what 'vendor_onboarding' entails, expected inputs structure, and prerequisites. The minimal details leave the agent underinformed for a complex domain action.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These brief descriptions provide some semantics beyond the parameter names but lack format details or examples. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs the 'vendor_onboarding' commerce domain agent action. The verb 'Run' and resource are explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'procurement_vendor_onboarding' or 'legal_vendor_onboard', though the 'commerce' prefix helps disambiguate by domain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'procurement_vendor_onboarding' or 'legal_vendor_onboard'. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions to avoid. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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