hr_onboard

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

The annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds some transparency by listing high-level side effects such as provisioning accounts and sending welcome packets. However, it does not disclose potential pitfalls like irreversible actions, dependencies on external systems, or what happens on partial failure. The description is informative but not exhaustive about behavioral nuances.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single introductory sentence followed by a clean list of arguments. It avoids unnecessary jargon or verbosity, presenting the core functionality and parameter descriptions in a compact, readable format that is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 of onboarding but omits important contextual details such as the return value or output structure (despite an output schema being present), potential error conditions, and any prerequisites like required permissions or pre-existing employee data. Given the tool's complexity and destructive nature, a bit more context on expected outcomes and failure modes would enhance completeness, but the core actions are adequately described.

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?

Although the input schema provides only titles, the description includes explicit explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'message: Free-text objective for the action', 'employee_name: New hire full name', 'start_date: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema, covering all five parameters with clear intent. The minor discrepancy about required fields (described as required but not enforced in schema) does not detract from the clarity of each parameter's meaning.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Run new-hire onboarding end-to-end') and elaborates on the concrete actions it performs (provision accounts, assign equipment, schedule meetings, send welcome packet, file paperwork). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools by its focus on HR onboarding, unlike CRM, finance, or collaboration tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for onboarding a new hire, but there is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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