submit_onboarding_artifacts

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 adds some context: it mentions validation ('validate'), persistence ('persist'), and prerequisites, which helps understand the tool's behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavioral impact.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured, with clear sections: a purpose statement, prerequisites, common use, and expected formats. Each sentence earns its place by adding specific value, such as clarifying artifact schemas or usage contexts, with no redundant or vague 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and parameter semantics for key artifacts. However, it could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like safety or error handling, especially since annotations are absent.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the expected formats for 'market_position', 'conversion_notes', and 'funnels', providing semantic context that the schema lacks (e.g., 'market_position: patch object with market position keys'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all parameters like 'product_slug' or 'client_id' in detail.

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: 'Validate and persist core onboarding artifacts for a product/session.' It specifies the verb ('validate and persist') and resource ('core onboarding artifacts'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'modify_market_positioning' or 'modify_funnels', which appear to handle similar artifacts individually.

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 with prerequisites ('prompt pack must be acknowledged for `session_id`') and common use cases ('called by `run_full_agentic_onboarding`', 'can also be used for staged/recovery runs'). It mentions a sibling tool ('run_full_agentic_onboarding') as a caller, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the individual modify tools (e.g., 'modify_market_positioning'), which could handle similar updates separately.

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