onboard_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool performs an upsert operation, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to existing records. The prerequisite of resolved coordinates is mentioned, but other behavioral traits are absent.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a critical constraint. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and a key constraint, it lacks information on return values (no output schema exists) and does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like link_identity or set_trust. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested object), the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by specifying that the a2a coordinates are 'already-resolved' and that no HTTP card fetch occurs, which clarifies the expected state of the 'a2a' parameter beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'Upsert' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'agent-peer friend record'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating 'from already-resolved coordinates (no HTTP card fetch)', which clarifies its scope and differentiates it from tools like resolve_party that might fetch coordinates.

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 when coordinates are already resolved, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid using this tool. No alternative sibling tools are mentioned, and there are no clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied 'no HTTP card fetch'.

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