create_onboarding_path

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Generate' action aligns with a non-read-only operation. The description adds context about dependency ordering and milestones, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the plan is persisted. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise—two sentences with clear front-loading of the main verb and purpose. It efficiently lists what the plan includes without unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output components (systems, people, docs, milestones). It could be slightly richer by specifying whether the plan is generated on-the-fly or stored, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, but it does contextualize how they are used (e.g., role-based and employee-specific planning). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('structured learning path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on onboarding new employees based on organizational knowledge, while siblings cover ownership, dependencies, and transitions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to accelerate new hire ramp-up using the organization's knowledge graph,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or differentiate from closely related tools like generate_transition_plan, though the onboarding focus is distinct enough.

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