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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutation that is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, such as side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes little extra value.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing almost no informative content beyond the tool name. It's not verbose, but it lacks substance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the expected outcome is, whether it's idempotent, and any relevant return values. None of this is mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it without further context.

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 50%: 'id' is described as 'Job id or alias', but 'user_id' has no description. The description vaguely maps 'company user' to user_id and 'job' to id, but doesn't clarify what user_id represents (e.g., a company user ID) or provide any additional semantics. It fails to compensate for the missing schema description of user_id.

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 action (Add), the resource (a company user), and the target (the job's hiring team). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other add tools like hires_add_candidate_tags, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as hires_list_hiring_team for viewing the current team or other add tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, expected use cases, or when not to use it.

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