tokonomix_onboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API key is required, the server returns a 400 if beta terms are not accepted, the response is enumeration-safe, and success returns {ok:true} regardless of existing accounts. It also explains the beta terms URL and the importance of human confirmation.

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 somewhat long but every sentence contributes value—it covers the purpose, beta terms caveat, fallback behavior, and next step. It is front-loaded with the main action and flows logically. A slight trim could be made, but it remains efficient for the information density.

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?

Given the onboarding flow complexity (OTP, beta terms, enumeration safety) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly. It explains the conditional 400 response, the meaning of accept_beta_terms, and the follow-up verify step, making it complete for this tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema, particularly for accept_beta_terms, explaining when to set it true and the consequence of not doing so. It also clarifies the email's purpose and the optionality of name and locale, which is meaningfully more than the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Step 1 of keyless first-run onboarding' and clearly states it 'Sends a 6-digit OTP to the provided email address.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and step designation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tokonomix_onboard_verify by explicitly directing the user to call that tool after a code is sent.

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 clear context: this is the entry point for new users, no API key is required, and the beta terms acceptance flow is explained with a fallback. It explicitly instructs the agent to confirm beta terms with the human and then call with accept_beta_terms: true, and to direct the user to the verify step. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools beyond the next step.

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