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

The description explicitly says 'Permanently delete', which reinforces the destructiveHint=true annotation and adds the nuance of irreversibility. This is meaningful context beyond the bare annotation, but there's no mention of side effects (e.g., associated data) or permission requirements. The bar is lower with annotations present, and this clears it but doesn't go further.

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 words, front-loaded with the verb and irreversibility. Zero filler.

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?

The operation is destructive and permanent, and the description communicates that, but it omits any context about side effects (e.g., whether related records are cascaded, whether this is irreversible after a grace period, or what the response is). A one-line description of a destructive tool leaves the agent without guidance on preconditions or consequences.

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 schema exposes only 'id' with no description flags, and the description does not elaborate beyond the obvious implication that the id targets an application. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not – it never tells the agent what id refers to, how to obtain it, or any validation constraints. The single parameter is barely self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and identifies the resource ('an application'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by specifying the target resource, though it doesn't clarify whether 'application' refers to a job application or an applicant record.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus related siblings like hires_advance_application, hires_batch_reject_applications, or hires_update_application. An agent must infer that deletion is for removing an application entirely, with no mention of prerequisites or consequences.

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