Plan an NCE transfer

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

The description discloses that the tool is planning-only, executes nothing, uses no Partner Center credentials, and makes no network call — a lookup over the bundled scenario pack. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by explaining the actual behavioral mechanics. It also specifies the return format and how to use the returned scenarioId with other tools, providing rich behavioral context.

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 efficient and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then usage context, then exclusions, then safety caveats, then return format and follow-up tools. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is somewhat longer than two sentences, but each sentence earns its place, and the structure aids comprehension.

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 role as a planning/lookup tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage criteria, behavioral safety, return value structure, and integration with pc_generate_call and pc_get_scenario. The output schema exists, so return details need not be exhaustively repeated. Combined with the detailed schema and annotations, the description leaves no critical gaps.

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% and the schema already provides a thorough explanation of the optional customerId parameter, including a GUID example, substitution behavior, and what happens when omitted. The description itself does not add parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 returns an ordered workflow for a New Commerce transfer, with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'ordered New Commerce transfer (billing-ownership change) workflow'. It also lists the steps (create, poll, verify), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like pc_plan_csp_onboarding and pc_plan_purchase, removing any ambiguity about when to use each.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when a customer is moving to a new partner of record.' It also names two alternative tools for different scenarios (first-time link-up and buying new subscriptions), providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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