onboard_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses idempotency, mutation, mandatory consent, and return structure. It does not mention failure modes or error handling, but the behavioral details provided are sufficient for most use cases.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, idempotency note, mandatory consent, parameter explanations, and return format. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; no unnecessary details.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's functionality well: idempotency, consent requirement, parameter logic, and return format. It is missing only potential error scenarios, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the create vs. update logic for files and target_agent, and the mandatory nature of confirm. It adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Write or update the kontexta workflow rules block in a project's agent context file(s).' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling file manipulation tools by focusing on workflow rules and idempotency.

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 provides clear usage guidelines: it modifies project configuration files, requires explicit user consent, and explains when to use confirm, files, and target_agent parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, but the context from siblings makes it less critical.

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