Add a note (1-10,000 characters) to the candidate's note thread. Everyone on the employer's account can read it, signed as the member "via" this app. Write about the candidate's fit for the job only; never copy applicant text into it as if it were a fact. Each call adds a new note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| application_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses what annotations cannot: the note is visible to every member of the employer's account, it is attributed to the calling member with a 'via this app' signature, and it is strictly append-only. That is exactly the kind of contextual risk information an agent needs before writing free text.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the size bound, then visibility, then content policy. Each sentence carries a distinct fact; the only mild redundancy is the closing restatement that each call adds a new note, which does serve the non-idempotency point.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers visibility, signature/attribution, size limit, and append semantics. What is missing is any explanation of the two required identifiers, the one real gap for a tool whose whole purpose depends on identifying the right application.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only documents one of three: the 1–10,000 character limit for `text`. `job_id` and `application_id` are never mentioned, so the agent gets no signal about whether the application must belong to the job or how they relate.
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+resource ('Add a note ... to the candidate's note thread') and constrains the payload to fit-for-job commentary, which separates it from siblings like add_interview_question or add_knockout_question without naming them.
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 gives concrete content rules — write about the candidate's fit for the job only, never present applicant text as fact — plus the visibility model (everyone on the employer's account can read it). It stops short of stating when to prefer an interview question or rating tool instead, so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
