wizard_update_onboarding_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions enabling resume, which adds context, but does not explain how state is persisted, whether previous state is overwritten, or how the optional error/resource parameters affect behavior. The description says 'after each successful tool execution' yet the schema includes an error parameter for step failures, creating slight ambiguity.

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 concise sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action and adds a brief usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple and has a complete schema plus an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description misses important behavioral context around the optional error parameter and how the resume state is persisted. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent fully understanding the tool's role.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond indicating the tool is used after completing a step, which aligns with the 'step' parameter but provides no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Update onboarding state after completing a step.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('onboarding state'), which distinguishes it from siblings like wizard_execute_onboarding and wizard_start_setup.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this after each successful tool execution to enable resume.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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