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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no further behavioral details such as stage defaulting or side effects, which are partially covered by stage_id's schema description. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no new context.

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?

A single sentence with zero fluff, leading with the action. It is efficiently structured and immediately conveys the core operation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites beyond 'existing candidate'. The presence of siblings like hires_submit_career_application suggests a need for differentiation, which the description lacks. The nested cv object and optional include parameter are not contextualized.

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 tool description provides no parameter guidance; it relies on the schema. With 60% schema coverage, several parameters like job_id lack descriptions, and the description does not compensate for the missing semantics, such as the optional nature of cv or how include affects the response.

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 states the verb 'Link' and the resource 'existing candidate to a job', creating an application. It is clear that this is for internal linking, not public applications, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from hires_submit_career_application.

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 implies usage when an existing candidate needs to be associated with a job. It does not provide explicit context about when to choose this over alternatives like hires_submit_career_application or hires_update_application, so usage is inferred but not definitive.

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