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) and not destructive or idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it creates a case 'with all standard tasks', which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as notifications or auto-assignments, even though openWorldHint=true suggests possible external effects. The annotations lower the bar, and the description provides some added context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It includes the unnecessary '[Write]' tag, but that is minor. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff, earning a maximum score.

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?

The tool has a simple intent and all parameters are documented in the schema, but there is no output schema or mention of return values. The description does not clarify what happens after creation (e.g., whether a case ID is returned or if any prerequisites like employee existence are checked). Given the 100% schema coverage and existing annotations, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps in operational context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, merely referring to the overall action. Since the schema already documents each parameter adequately, the description's contribution is minimal but not missing.

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's action: creating an employee onboarding case, and specifies that it includes all standard tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_offboarding_case and create_hr_case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool (when onboarding an employee), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It is clear enough for the agent to infer appropriate use, but lacks the explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance that would earn a 5.

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