hr_onboard

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists major actions (provision accounts, assign equipment, etc.) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or limits. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 with one purpose sentence followed by a list of arguments. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. The argument list is slightly redundant with the schema but still clear.

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 tool is complex (end-to-end onboarding). The description covers main actions but omits details like handling of duplicate employees, processing time, or error scenarios. With an output schema present, the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. Overall, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It provides brief semantic hints for each parameter (e.g., 'New hire full name' for employee_name, 'YYYY-MM-DD' for start_date). However, details like allowed values or constraints are missing for some parameters (e.g., manager_email). Adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Run new-hire onboarding end-to-end' and lists specific actions like provision accounts, assign equipment, schedule day-1 meetings, etc. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hr_offboard (offboarding) and hr_lookup (lookup), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hr_lookup to check employee existence, hr_offboard for offboarding). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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