cpu_complete_onboarding_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that marking a step closed affects state, that closing the sixth step ends the introduction, and that it returns the new state and next brief. It does not mention idempotency or error cases, but for a simple state-transition tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds value: it defines the tool, lists eligible steps, clarifies exclusions, gives timing guidance, and states the output. It is front-loaded with the purpose and remains focused. A minor redundancy exists between the parameter description and the body, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one enum parameter, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, when not to, how to time the call, and what response to expect (new state and next brief). An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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% (the step parameter is documented with an enum and description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining which enum values are eligible (intro, wallet_and_cell, tour) and which are not (reveal, build_extractor, start_mining), and by adding the requirement that the step's content must have actually been had. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('one step of the introduction as closed'), and clearly lists which steps it applies to. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that close their own steps (cpu_reveal, cpu_build, cpu_start_mining), making its role unambiguous.

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 when-to-use conditions: for pure explanation steps (intro, wallet_and_cell, tour) after the player has had them, and for steps already done before onboarding. It explicitly says when NOT to use it (for action steps that close themselves) and gives a timing instruction (close in the same turn without asking permission). This fully guides an agent.

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