submit_basic_info

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this call initializes the session, is where Fodda begins persisting progress, and requires explicit terms acceptance first. It does not describe what a re-call does or the response, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by behavioral note and the terms precondition. There is minor redundancy ('begin saving progress' vs 'starts saving the expert's onboarding'), but no wasted scaffolding.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the required terms-acceptance gate, and the state change. It omits what the call returns and where it sits relative to the broader onboarding tool sequence, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 9 parameters including the callPrice enum values and the headshotUrl URL-only constraint. The description merely restates a subset of fields (name, role, knowledge area, call rate, bio/headshot), adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submit basic expert details... to initialize the Human Agent onboarding session') and names the exact fields being submitted. It is clearly a write step in onboarding, distinguishable from read siblings like get_onboarding_status, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the related begin_expert_onboarding or finalize_byo_mcp_onboarding.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('Before calling, show the Terms and Privacy Policy links and get an explicit yes') and identifies this as the step where saving begins. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or routing to the sibling onboarding tools, but the operational context is well established.

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