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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the 'calling it twice is safe' line restates structured data. However, 'The member sees the star on the board and can change it back' adds genuinely new context: the state is externally visible and reversible by others, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the parameter value, with no filler. Each sentence conveys a distinct fact (action, safety, visibility).

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It covers visibility and reversibility, but says nothing about who is permitted to set the star or what happens with an invalid application_id.

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 carries the burden; it does define the meaning of the boolean ('shortlisted=true' = star). job_id and application_id are left entirely unexplained, though their names are largely self-evident.

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 action pair ('Star ... or unstar a candidate') and the mechanism ('shortlisted=true'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like rate_candidate or reject_candidate. The verb/resource pairing is 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?

Implies the usage (to toggle the shortlist star on a candidate) but never states when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as mark_reviewed, rate_candidate or reject_candidate, nor any prerequisite permissions. The clarification that setting the value is idempotent helps the caller but is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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