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

The description discloses the concrete state change (status becomes hired, hired_at is set), which is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds detail beyond the annotation about what gets modified, and no contradiction exists. It does not mention potential side effects like notifications, but the destructiveHint already signals mutation, so the added specificity is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and effect without extra words. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary effect but omits context such as whether any preconditions exist (e.g., application stage), what the response contains, or how it differs from similar actions like advance_application. Given the destructive nature and sibling variety, a bit more context would help, but it is not severely lacking.

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% (only 'include' is described). The description does not clarify the 'id' parameter, which is required but undocumented in the schema. It adds no parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the gap, though the tool name suggests id is an application identifier.

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: marking an application as hired, and specifies the effect (status becomes hired, hired_at is set). It distinguishes this from siblings like reject_application or advance_application by naming the exact state change. The verb 'mark' and resource 'application' are specific.

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 update_application, advance_application, or reject_application. It does not state prerequisites or when hiring is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and effect.

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