onboarding_post_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description's only added behavioral context is that creation is scoped to the 'current organization'; it says nothing about required permissions, whether the new plan begins executing immediately, or what happens if a duplicate name exists.

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 first two lines say the same thing twice, and the third line is a bare HTTP path — two of three lines earn little. The one useful piece of information ('in the current organization') is buried in the redundant copy rather than front-loaded as its own statement.

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 mutation tool with a large nested body, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description is too thin: it never says what a successful call yields (a plan id?) or what the agent should do next. An agent could invoke it but would not understand the consequences.

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 coverage is 100% at the top level, and the required nested fields (name, projectId) carry their own schema descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the body — not which of the ~18 optional nested properties matter, nor that status/createdBy/lastRunTimeMicros look server-managed and should likely be omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an onboarding plan') plus a scope qualifier ('in the current organization'), so the agent knows this is a write that creates a plan object rather than reads or updates one. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from nearby siblings such as onboarding_post_blueprint, onboarding_post_deployment, or onboarding_patch_plan_by_id, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 on when to create a new plan versus patching an existing one (onboarding_patch_plan_by_id) or when a plan is even appropriate. No prerequisites, no mention of what must exist first (a project), and no alternatives are named.

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