hr_offboard

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

The description discloses concrete behavioral effects beyond the annotations: it revokes access, transfers ownership, schedules exit interviews, calculates final pay, and archives records. The destructiveHint=true annotation already signals danger, and the description adds useful specifics about what gets changed. It stops short of warning about irreversibility or required permissions.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the Args block is scannable. The inaccurate 'required' labels and the generic message definition are minor blemishes, but there is no fluff or redundant content.

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 covers the main workflow steps and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Missing context includes how the free-text message influences the action, what happens when optional fields are omitted, and whether there are prerequisites or limitations relative to sibling HR tools. For a destructive offboarding action, this is a noticeable gap.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format for last_day, explains voluntary as 'Voluntary departure (vs termination)', and describes message as a free-text objective. However, it falsely marks employee_id and last_day as required while the schema declares no required properties and defaults them to null, and 'employee_id: Employee ID' adds little over the parameter name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Run employee offboarding', and enumerates concrete sub-actions: revoke access, transfer ownership, schedule exit interviews, calculate final pay, archive records. This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like hr_onboard, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as hr_onboard, hr_employee_offboarding_loop, or hr_live_cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied by the name and action list, but the agent is not explicitly routed.

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