onboard_add_analytics

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

There are no annotations to help convey safety or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Generate onboarding analytics (Pro feature)', which hints at gating but does not disclose whether files are created, the project directory is modified, or an API key is required for authentication.

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 and front-loaded, with the action and resource appearing first. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' adds useful contextual information without clutter. It is appropriately short, though arguably too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-line description, important context is missing: what the generated analytics look like, where they are written, whether the tool is read-only, and what 'Pro feature' means for invocation. The description gives the agent just enough to guess the purpose but not enough to confidently call the tool correctly.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With schema description coverage at 50%, only 'directory' is documented, and the 'api_key' parameter remains unexplained in both the schema and description. The phrase 'Pro feature' hints at entitlement, but does not explain how api_key is used.

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 states a clear action ('Generate') and a clear resource ('onboarding analytics'), so an agent can understand the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like onboard_generate_flow or onboard_add_steps, but 'analytics' provides enough topical specificity to be useful.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus onboard_generate_flow, onboard_add_steps, or referral_add_analytics. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, so the agent must 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.