Plan user offboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial context beyond that: 'nothing is executed, no Partner Center credentials are used, and no network call is made — it is a lookup over the bundled scenario pack.' This fully characterizes the tool's behavior with no contradiction.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose, then covers usage, safety, output structure, and follow-up actions in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

Tool complexity is moderate, but the description covers the goal, return object shape, ordering of steps, and downstream integration (pc_generate_call, pc_get_scenario). The output schema exists, so not explaining return fields is acceptable. Annotations and schema fully complement the description.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the single customerId parameter: substituting it makes the plan 'ready to run' while omitting yields 'generic plan with placeholders.' This goes beyond the schema's basic type/format info, meriting a 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the ordered workflow for removing a user from a customer tenant' and details the safe order (licenses, seats, roles, delete). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the inverse tool (pc_plan_user_onboarding) and a separate concern (cancelling subscriptions).

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?

States explicitly when to use: 'Use this to decommission a person without stranding licenses.' Provides alternatives and exclusions: 'The inverse is pc_plan_user_onboarding; cancelling the subscriptions themselves is a different concern.' This is model usage guidance.

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