Plan user onboarding

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explicitly states '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 adds operational context that is not captured by the annotations, such as the absence of network I/O and credential usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, behavioral guarantees, return format, and tool relationships. It is front-loaded with the primary function and uses punctuation to pack a lot of value without being redundant. No filler or tautology.

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?

The description provides a full picture of what the tool returns (goal, steps[], notes[]), the structure of each step, and how to continue with pc_generate_call or pc_get_scenario. Combined with the output schema (present), the tool's behavior, limitations, and integrations are completely specified. The description is self-sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke it appropriately.

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% for the single optional parameter customerId, with full detail about placeholder substitution already in the schema. The tool description does not add new information about this parameter; it focuses on the output structure and cross-references. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the ordered workflow for onboarding a user inside a customer tenant' and enumerates the steps (pick SKUs, create account, assign licenses, grant roles, verify). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is 'unrelated to buying subscriptions' (pc_plan_purchase) and names the reverse tool (pc_plan_user_offboarding). This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from other planning tools.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this for people-level provisioning.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'It is unrelated to buying subscriptions — for that use pc_plan_purchase — and the reverse direction is pc_plan_user_offboarding.' Additionally, it clarifies that this is planning-only, not execution, which sets expectations for when to invoke this tool vs. a generation tool.

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