company_adopt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose that every step is a real chain transition on the provider's exact rows, which warns about mutation and exactness. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, but the core side-effect is surfaced.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, and the operation distinction is front-loaded. It is concise, though its density of domain jargon reduces immediate readability.

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 tool with seven parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to construct bundle_json, what plan vs run actually returns, or what prerequisites are needed, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the operation parameter (plan vs run) and vaguely references provider reads; bundle_json, project_id, payload_json, now, engine, and entity_ref remain unexplained.

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 names a specific verb pair (plan/apply) and concrete resources (subscriptions, bills, open CRM deals) being adopted into chain states. It is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when existing provider data needs to be planned or applied into chain states, with the operation parameter selecting plan vs run. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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