Initialize sub-account KYC

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the write/external-effect profile is covered. The description adds valuable context those annotations don't: the VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING gate, the confirm:true requirement, and the fact that the email flow actually contacts the customer—important for a side-effecting operation.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, email flow, redirect flow, webhook/tracking/gating) with no repetition or filler. The primary action is front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers flow selection, prerequisites, gating, and the redirect widget_url return. It doesn't state what the email flow returns or expiry defaults beyond expires_in_days, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional logic the schema states only per-field: customer_email is required for email flow, redirect_url for redirect flow, and webhook_url/webhook semantics. This conditional pairing genuinely helps correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a Vobiz-hosted KYC session for a sub-account') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling get_sub_account_kyc_status, which is named as the tracking counterpart. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the two flow_type modes and their prerequisites (email requires customer_email; redirect requires redirect_url), and routes the agent to get_sub_account_kyc_status for progress. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or eligibility conditions beyond the gating flags, so it falls just short of a 5.

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