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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: this is a two-phase proposal, nothing mutates until user confirmation, an exception exists for users who pre-authorize assistant changes, and the result text reports which path was taken. No contradiction with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the input source, and the second sentence spends its length on the non-obvious confirmation semantics rather than filler. Every clause carries information.

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 destructive, one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the confirmation gate, and result reporting. It is only slightly short of complete because it never states the effect is reversible (via show_company_again), which matters for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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 already documents 'A postingId from search_jobs, at the company to hide.' The description restates the same sourcing and the indirect company identification, adding no extra format, validation, 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+resource ('Propose to stop showing the person jobs from one company') and clarifies that the company is identified indirectly via a job posting. This clearly separates it from the inverse sibling show_company_again and from read-only lookups like job_details or search_jobs.

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?

Gives clear context: the tool proposes a change, and that change only takes effect after the person confirms in support chat unless their settings allow automatic changes. It does not explicitly name show_company_again as the way to undo, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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