legal_hr_onboarding_packet

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

The description does add some context beyond annotations by noting the request is routed through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not elaborate on the destructive potential flagged by `destructiveHint:true`, such as which documents or states might be modified or created. This does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves the action's side effects opaque.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action statement, followed by a brief routing explanation and an argument list. No sentence is wasted. It loses a point only because the terse argument boilerplate does little to clarify how to use this specific tool.

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 tool with two free-form parameters, a destructive hint, and a huge sibling list, the description is incomplete. It never states what an onboarding packet contains, what inputs the packet action expects, when an agent should choose this over legal/HR alternatives, or what the output schema actually reflects. The output schema and annotations provide some structure, but the description alone does not give an agent enough context to select and invoke this correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden, and it only labels the parameters generically: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' These labels are just barely more meaningful than the schema titles 'Message' and 'Inputs'. There is no information about which structured input keys are valid for `hr_onboarding_packet`, what fields the onboarding packet requires, or how the free-text objective maps to the action's behavior.

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 says the tool 'Run the legal domain agent action `hr_onboarding_packet`', which names a specific verb and resource, but it never explains what an HR onboarding packet is or what the action produces. The line is close to restating the tool name and relies on the name itself to carry domain meaning. It does not distinguish this from the many other legal packet/onboarding tools except by the action identifier.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `legal_employment_agreement_packet`, `hr_onboarding_assist`, or the generic `dispatch_domain_agent`. The description only states mechanics—'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher'—and provides argument definitions. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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