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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'permanently' to emphasize irreversibility. However, it does not disclose potential cascading side effects (e.g., deletion of associated applications, notes) or required permissions, which would be valuable given the destructive nature.

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 that is concise and front-loaded, containing no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple destructive tool with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on irreversibility (already hinted) and potential cascading effects, which would improve completeness for an AI agent deciding to use this tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of the 'id' parameter (integer or alias). The description's mention of 'by ID or alias' adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete), resource (candidate), and means of identification (by ID or alias). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools for other entities (e.g., hires_delete_application) and from the alternative disqualify operation.

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 indicates the tool is for permanent deletion but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like disqualification (hires_disqualify_candidate) or any prerequisites (e.g., candidate must not have active applications). No explicit usage guidance is provided.

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