create_onboarding_case

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with possible side effects (openWorldHint=true) and non-destructive. The description adds that it creates 'all standard tasks', implying additional record creations, but does not detail other behaviors like required permissions, potential duplication (idempotentHint=false), or what happens to existing data.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a tag. It front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. Every element earns its place, 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?

Despite the tool having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, preconditions (e.g., employee must exist), or fully elaborate on the side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications and expected output.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. The description's mention of 'employee onboarding case' aligns with the schema's employee_sys_id parameter but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what is already documented.

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 creates an 'employee onboarding case with all standard tasks', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_offboarding_case and create_hr_case by specifying the case type and the inclusion of standard tasks.

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 alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. Agents are left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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