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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining *why* it is destructive: 'auto' sends applications to the employer without asking and 'a sent application cannot be undone', while 'review' holds them for approval. It also covers the entitlement gate and states the return ('Returns the settings after the change'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 lead sentence defines the tool up front and the rest is dense with non-redundant facts (irreversibility, plan gate, return value, alternatives). It loses a mark for restating default_apply_mode semantics that the parameter description already spells out, making the block longer than it strictly needs to be.

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 4-param, all-optional mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: when to call, when not to, entitlement precondition, irreversibility of the 'auto' path, and what comes back. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 each parameter carries enum/range detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine cross-tool semantics the schema does not: default_apply_mode is 'also what getmattered_apply does when its mode is omitted', tying one field to a sibling tool's default behavior. It does not, however, add anything beyond the schema for daily_limit or match_level.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change the user's Auto Apply settings') and enumerates exactly which settings are touched (enabled, default apply mode, daily limit, match level). It explicitly separates itself from getmattered_apply ('Do not use it to apply to one job') and points at getmattered_get_applications as the follow-up, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening any schema.

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?

States a hard use condition ('Call it only when the user asks to change these settings, never on your own'), names the alternative for the confusable case (getmattered_apply), and gives a next step. It also discloses the plan prerequisite (Hired Yesterday) and the failure behavior ('the answer says so and nothing changes'), which is exactly the kind of routing information an agent needs.

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