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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Permanently delete' reinforces the destructive nature. It adds a slight nuance by saying 'permanently', indicating irreversibility, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like cascading effects on related data (e.g., applications, notes) or whether authentication is required. Since annotations cover the core hint, the description's value is limited but not redundant.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and permanence, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary content.

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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter, a clear schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is adequate. It doesn't include return value details, but there is no output schema, and for a delete operation, the return is likely a simple success response. The description covers the essential intent and destructive nature, which is comprehensive enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, id, with a clear 'Candidate id or alias' description. The description of the tool adds minimal value to the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description's 'candidate' context aligns with the parameter description, earning a slight boost to 4.

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 'Permanently delete a candidate' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (candidate), and the permanence aspect, which distinguishes it from other operations. It is specific and unambiguous, and sibling tools that also delete (e.g., hires_delete_application) are distinguishable by the resource name in the title and description.

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 that the tool is for deleting a candidate permanently, which is a clear use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as disqualify_candidate or remove_candidate_tag, which might be less destructive. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites, but the directness of the purpose helps. This is a basic but not comprehensive guidance.

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