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

The description is consistent with the annotations (destructiveHint: true), and the term 'deactivate' aligns with the destructive nature. However, it adds little beyond the annotations; it does not clarify reversibility, impact on applications, or what happens if the 'boards' parameter is omitted. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriching.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no redundant wording or filler. It is instantly parseable and efficient.

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 simple with only two parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not clarify the behavior when 'boards' is not provided (is it required for removal, or does it default to all boards?). This ambiguity is a gap in completeness, though the scope is otherwise clear.

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 100% for both parameters (id and boards). The description's phrase 'given boards' loosely ties to the 'boards' parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not compensate further.

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 ('Deactivate the job's publication') and the resource ('on the given boards'). It is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'hires_batch_remove_from_boards', which performs a similar action for multiple jobs, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the batch alternative or the publishing tool. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent might not know whether to use this single-job tool or the batch version based on the description alone.

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