legal_vendor_onboard

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

Annotations already convey destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful routing and scoping context by noting it dispatches under the JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects occur, what the action creates or modifies, or any operational consequences.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary context. The Args section is compact and easy to scan.

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 no parameter schema coverage and a name that only suggests vendor onboarding, the description is too thin. It fails to explain what the action does, what inputs it expects at a meaningful level, when to prefer it over related legal/vendor tools, or what outcomes the agent should expect.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining both parameters. It gives minimal but functional semantics: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. It does not explain acceptable input structure, examples, or constraints.

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 runs the legal domain agent action `vendor_onboard`, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the specific action from siblings by naming the domain and action, though it does not explain what onboarding a vendor entails beyond the action name.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not route the agent toward this tool over alternatives such as legal_vendor_screen, legal_vendor_renew, or the generic dispatch_domain_agent, leaving selection to inference.

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