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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real-world side effects: nothing is sent to an employer, nothing is spent, and the action is reversible via save_matches. This concretely reinforces the destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true annotations with domain-specific meaning.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the safety and routing information comes early. The trailing 'Next:' sentence is a useful but slightly clipped navigation cue that breaks the prose flow.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive mutation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, side effects, reversibility, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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% and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-to-25 bound and example format. The description restates the same constraint and source tool, adding no new syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove job matches from the user's saved list') and immediately clarifies the scope: matches remain in the user's matches. This distinguishes it from save_matches, restore_matches, and skip_matches named in the siblings list.

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 names the anti-pattern ('Do not use it to hide a match the user does not want') and routes to the correct alternative, getmattered_skip_matches. It also states input provenance (ids from get_mattered_get_matches), the reversal path (save_matches), and the follow-up step.

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