begin_expert_onboarding

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context by revealing a multi-stage orchestration: credential verification, step retrieval, then guided profile creation. It does not specify failure modes or side effects of credential verification, keeping it short of 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and enumerates the three sub-steps. Efficient with no filler, though the trailing clause list is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what the caller receives (onboarding steps? a status object?) or what to do if onboarding was already begun. For a kickoff tool in a flow with siblings like get_onboarding_status and finalize_byo_mcp_onboarding, this leaves a real gap.

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% and both parameters (byoMcp, userId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Begin the Fodda expert onboarding process to create an authorized Human Agent') and names the concrete outcome. It is differentiable from siblings like submit_basic_info or finalize_byo_mcp_onboarding, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 word 'Begin' implies this is the entry point of a flow, so usage is hinted at. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no note that get_onboarding_status exists for resuming/checking, and no prerequisites such as being an authenticated expert.

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