Prepare personalized onboarding turn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered by structured data. The description adds that the turn may update the food profile and confirmed allergy constraints, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it never explains the staging/confirmation workflow implied by the 'prepare' prefix or the consequence of repeated non-idempotent calls.

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?

A single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 non-read-only, non-idempotent staging tool with no output schema and one fully undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It omits the confirmation step, expected return, and the semantics of the transcript, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'transcript' is not mentioned in the description at all. Saying 'text onboarding turn' only loosely implies a text input, adding little meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 specific verb and resource ('stage one text onboarding turn') and clarifies what the turn can do (update food profile and confirmed allergy constraints). It is understandable on its own, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like prepare_update_food_profile or prepare_upsert_safety_constraint that appear to touch the same data.

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 use this tool versus the many sibling prepare_* tools, nor any prerequisite or sequencing information (e.g., whether it must follow get_onboarding_state). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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