legal_partnership_onboarding_loop

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=false, so the side-effect profile is known. The description adds useful scoping context by mentioning routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects or state changes the loop triggers.

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 and front-loaded with the action verb, followed by a short routing note and a clear Args block. It avoids fluff, though it could spend a sentence on the loop's purpose or outcome.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover what the loop produces, how long it runs, whether it is async, or what prerequisites exist. For a tool named as a multi-step onboarding loop with destructive annotations, this is a significant information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add basic meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. However, the description stops at one-liners and does not explain the expected JSON structure, possible fields, or how message and inputs interact.

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 identifies the action as the legal domain agent action `partnership_onboarding_loop` and says it runs through the domain-agent dispatcher, so it is more than a tautology. However, it never explains what partnership onboarding actually does or how it differs from similar legal loop siblings such as legal_enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop or legal_law_firm_growth_loop.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative legal loops or onboarding tools. It only describes the routing mechanics and arguments, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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