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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'safely' updates and 'refuses' invalid assignments, indicating a validation step. However, it does not describe return behavior, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error scenarios. The dry_run parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description. Additional behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, success response format) are missing.

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 two sentences long and directly communicates the purpose and a key behavioral trait. Every word is relevant; there is no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient and front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the core action and a safety constraint but omits what the tool returns upon success or failure. Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the response format. The description is minimally sufficient for a write operation but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds limited value beyond the schema: it reinforces the constraint that recruiter_id and coordinator_id must be active hiring-team members. It does not elaborate on parameter syntax or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Safely update application recruiter and/or coordinator assignment in Greenhouse.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_job_coordinator_owner and add_job_recruiter_owner, which operate at the job level, by specifying 'application assignment.' The verb 'update' and resource 'application assignment' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions a key usage constraint: 'This tool refuses assignments to users who are not active hiring-team members on the current job.' This helps an agent decide when to use the tool (only for valid team members). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative tools (e.g., job-level owner tools). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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