wizard_execute_onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal primary mutations and the state-file resume mechanism, but it omits important details such as permission requirements, idempotency, impact on existing resources, and failure behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and avoids fluff. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about the workflow and resume capability.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview of the workflow steps and explicitly mentions the resume state file, which is critical context for a complex multi-step operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, prerequisites and guidance on interacting with sibling wizard tools are not addressed.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the state file path and resume behavior but does not provide parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 executes the full onboarding workflow and enumerates concrete high-level actions (creates Connect instance, configures routing, enables Cases and Q in Connect). This specificity distinguishes it from related wizard tools like wizard_start_setup or wizard_generate_faq_files.

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?

The description implies usage by describing the full workflow and resume capability, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like wizard_start_setup or wizard_update_onboarding_state. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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