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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the concrete effect: the candidate leaves the active shortlist and processing status becomes rejected. It also clarifies that no hiring outcome is recorded, which is important behavioral context. Reversibility and permission requirements are not stated, but annotations already carry the destructive safety signal.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences front-load the action and effect, then immediately clarify the non-hiring distinction. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what it changes, what it does not record, and the alternative sibling for hiring outcomes. It omits edge cases such as what happens if the candidate is not in a completed screening state, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The description never mentions candidateId or workspaceId and provides no format or selection guidance for either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50%, with candidateId left undocumented in the schema; the phrase 'one completed candidate' implicitly constrains candidateId but does not compensate for the missing parameter detail.

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 names a specific action and object: rejecting one completed candidate by applying the screening gate so they leave the active shortlist with processing status rejected. It also distinguishes this operation from the sibling tool record_hiring_outcome, so an agent can identify its role without checking schemas.

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?

It explicitly says this is not a hiring decision and that record_hiring_outcome should be used for hiring outcomes, giving a clear exclusion and alternative. It does not address other adjacent operations such as bulk_triage_candidates or set_candidate_stage, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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