legal_employment_agreement_packet

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data modifications, or return values. It only mentions that it routes through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is about authentication, not behavior. The annotation indicates destructive=true, but the description adds no context about what is destroyed or changed.

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 very concise, with only a few lines including the Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to read. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substantive information, but the structure itself is clean.

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 insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, expected inputs, outputs, or when to invoke it. It lacks any explanation of the employment agreement packet domain, the type of objective expected, or what the action accomplishes. The presence of an output schema is not described, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 provides brief explanations for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, these are vague and do not clarify what content or format is expected. Since the schema has zero description coverage, the description should compensate with more detail, but it falls short.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Run the legal domain agent action employment_agreement_packet.' It does not explain what an employment agreement packet is, what it does, or how it differs from other legal actions in the sibling list. The verb 'run' and the action name provide minimal clarity beyond the tool's own title.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this action is appropriate. The mention of routing and scope is about mechanics, not usage guidance.

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