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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by spelling out the concrete side effects of each branch: stamping appliedEndDate/interviewingEndDate/offerEndDate, setting status to CANDIDATE_WITHDREW and endDate=now, or clearing endDate and resetting to APPLIED. It also notes the app-button equivalence, which helps the agent reason about user intent. No contradiction with the mutation 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?

Front-loaded with trigger phrases, then clearly bulleted per branch, so an agent can scan it quickly. Slight redundancy: the 'check current isActive first' instruction appears in the description and again in the schema's parameter description.

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?

Covers triggers, both branches' effects, prerequisites, and the sibling it replaces; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by mapping each value of currentIsActive to its full consequence chain rather than just restating the boolean meaning. The pre-call verification instruction ('check isActive before calling') is a semantic constraint the schema only weakly implies.

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 (deactivate/reactivate interest) and resource (job application), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_job_application_status. The trigger-phrase list at the top makes the tool's identity unambiguous at a glance.

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?

Enumerates the exact user phrasings that select this tool, names the wrong alternative ('do not use update_job_application_status as a proxy'), and requires checking current state via get_job_application or search_job_applications first. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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