customer_success_onboarding_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'runs' an action and routes through a dispatcher, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavioral traits are largely absent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences of context followed by parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 simple domain action runner with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage examples, error handling details, and behavioral outcomes beyond execution.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema's title and type fields.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the specific resource 'onboarding_health' in the customer_success domain. The purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling customer_success tools like 'customer_success_chat' or 'customer_success_health_score_report'.

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 mentions routing under the user's JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authentication context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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