hr_kyc_intake

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context by explaining that the tool routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects the KYC intake may cause or what state changes occur.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, the routing mechanism, and the two parameters with short definitions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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 domain-agent action marked destructive and open-world, with no required parameters and no explanation of what KYC intake does, the description is thin. The agent is not told what outcome to expect, what structured inputs the action accepts, what prerequisites exist, or what the return payload represents, despite an output schema being present.

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. It provides basic meaning for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it gives no example structure, allowed keys, or format expectations, leaving the agent to guess what 'inputs' should contain.

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 states a specific action ('Run the hr domain agent action kyc_intake') and names the resource precisely. It does not, however, explain what KYC intake actually accomplishes, so an agent must infer the purpose largely from the tool name and domain context.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to run the HR KYC intake action. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like dispatch_domain_agent, hr_identity_verify, or other HR intakes, and no exclusions are provided.

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