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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only say non-read-only and non-destructive, while the description discloses server-side dedup, the duplicate:true return path, and a propose-then-confirm handshake with action_id and plan_token. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before attempting a write.

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 purpose, then dedup, then the confirmation mechanics, which is the right ordering for a mutation tool. There is minor redundancy between 'Requires confirmation before it runs' and the following 'CONFIRMATION:' sentence, but nothing wasteful overall.

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 confirmation lifecycle and dedup behavior are covered thoroughly, which is the hard part for a write tool. However, with 12 undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what the fields mean or which combinations are valid, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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?

All 12 parameters have zero schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. It implicitly establishes email, phone, and telegram as identity keys via the dedup rule, but city, tags, notes, birth_date, names, talent_pool, and responsible_user_id carry no meaning anywhere.

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 ('Create a candidate/person card') plus the scope ('in the caller's HR workspace'). It also distinguishes itself from the named sibling hr_merge_people, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicitly says when the tool will not create anything (server-side dedup on email/phone/telegram) and names the alternative for the adjacent case: 'use hr_merge_people if two cards genuinely need folding together'. It also sets the invocation path: expect status='confirmation_required' and call confirm_action.

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