procurement_vendor_onboarding

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

The annotation indicates destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict it, but it adds no specifics about what side effects may occur or whether changes are reversible. The generic 'run action' phrasing provides minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two concise sentences. It states the purpose and the routing mechanism without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 generic domain-agent wrapper, the description is adequate: it names the action, mentions routing context, and clarifies the parameters. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It does not provide domain-specific vendor onboarding context, but that is not strictly necessary given the tool name.

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 gives short explanations for both parameters ('message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON string), which is helpful given the schema itself has no field descriptions. However, it leaves the expected structure or possible values of the JSON 'inputs' undefined.

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 it runs the procurement domain agent action 'vendor_onboarding' and routes through the domain-agent dispatcher. The tool name is descriptive, making the purpose easy to infer, though it does not detail the exact business workflow.

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 explains how routing works (JWT, tenant, company scope) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It lacks criteria for when vendor onboarding is needed or when another tool should be chosen.

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