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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects and safety context an agent could not infer: nothing is sent to any employer, nothing is spent, and the reason is persisted and used to improve future matches. It also documents reversibility and the condition under which undo works (while the posting is still open), which complements idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than restating them.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then constraints, then alternatives, then the next step — a sensible ordering with no filler. It loses a point for duplicating structured data verbatim (the 1-to-25 range and the full reason enum list already live in the schema).

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: cost/notification side effects, reason persistence, reversibility, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining where the ids come from (getmattered_get_matches) and, more importantly, what the reason field actually does downstream (saved with the skip, trains the matcher). It restates the batch size and enum values that already exist in the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (skip job matches) plus the observable effect: they stop showing in the user's matches. It is clearly distinguished from nearby siblings by naming getmattered_restore_matches as the undo and getmattered_reject_applications as the wrong tool for a different situation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Skip only the matches the user turned down'), when not to ('Do not use it to reject an application that is waiting for review'), and which alternative to use instead. It also names the follow-up step: getmattered_get_matches for the next matches.

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