onboard_add_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' which implies a mutation, but does not state what files or systems are modified, whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires configuration setup, or what side effects may occur. This is insufficient for an apparently state-changing tool.

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 very short and contains no filler words. However, brevity here comes at the cost of substance; it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is no functional information that an agent could not derive from the tool name.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It omits the purpose of api_key, what 'steps' refers to, what success looks like, and what project state it depends on. Even for a simple tool, an agent would struggle to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%; the api_key parameter is completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning to either parameter. The directory parameter has a minimal schema description, but the overall meaning of how these parameters map to adding onboarding step tracking is not explained.

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 'Add onboarding step tracking' essentially restates the tool name onboard_add_steps with no additional specificity. It fails to clarify what 'step tracking' means, whether it creates steps, tracks completion of existing steps, or configures analytics hooks. It also does not differentiate from nearby siblings like onboard_add_analytics or onboard_generate_flow.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for whether it is for tracking user onboarding progress, logging funnel events, or modifying a project's onboarding configuration. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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