customer_success_onboarding_health

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

Annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description discloses no side effects, state changes, or consequences of invoking the action. It adds only plumbing context about the dispatcher, which does not help an agent anticipate behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, with an Args section that is reasonably scannable. But the opening sentence mostly repeats the tool name and the routing sentence is generic boilerplate, so not every sentence contributes substantive selection or invocation value.

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 destructive domain-agent action with only free-text message and optional JSON inputs, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what onboarding_health means, what outcomes to expect, what structured inputs are valid, or what destructive side effects may occur. The output schema cannot make up for this missing behavioral and domain context.

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 compensate. It does identify message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it gives no examples, accepted input keys, or guidance on how to phrase the objective.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Run the customer_success domain agent action `onboarding_health`.' It never explains what onboarding_health actually does, what health data it returns, or how it differs from sibling customer_success_* tools. This is close to a tautology with only routing/scoping context added.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites beyond generic JWT/tenant/company scope, and no when-not-to-use cases. The routing sentence describes mechanism, not selection criteria.

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