pc_plan_gdap_onboarding

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it is read-only. The phrase 'across Microsoft Graph' hints at scope but lacks depth.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the workflow steps but does not add value beyond a terse summary. It could be reorganized to clearly state the action and parameter.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description still fails to convey the tool's behavior or output. The agent lacks information to use the tool correctly, especially since the workflow steps suggest a sequence but no details on execution.

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 single parameter 'customerId' is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its purpose, format, or constraints. The agent cannot determine what value to pass.

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 it's 'the ordered GDAP onboarding workflow' but does not specify a verb (e.g., execute, retrieve, or guide). The noun phrase leaves ambiguity about what the tool actually does—whether it returns a plan, executes steps, or provides documentation. It is distinct from sibling plan tools but lacks action clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_plan_purchase or pc_plan_reconciliation. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description provides no usage context.

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