hr_employee_hire_onboarding_loop

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what effects the loop has on HR data, what it changes, or what side effects to expect despite destructiveHint=true. The annotations provide the safety profile, and the description adds routing context, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 the core purpose stated in the first line and the mechanism and arguments following compactly. No filler or redundant expansion exists. It loses a point because the parameter explanations are minimal, but as a concise structure it works.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool. It never explains what the employee_hire_onboarding_loop actually does, what information should be in the message or inputs, or what the output/result represents. The presence of an output schema and annotations softens this somewhat, but the agent is left without enough context to use it correctly among many HR-related siblings.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It labels message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. Still, these descriptions are generic and do not specify what content the message or inputs should contain for the employee hire onboarding loop.

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 names the specific resource: the 'hr domain agent action employee_hire_onboarding_loop'. It identifies the domain (HR) and the action shape (a loop), which is reasonably clear even without a detailed outcome. However, it does not distinguish behavior from similar HR tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hr_onboard, hr_onboarding_assist, or hr_employee_offboarding_loop. It merely states the routing mechanism, not the conditions that should trigger this loop or when to prefer a different HR tool.

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