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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the watchlist destination and optional notes but does not elaborate on side effects like updating existing entries or whether notes override previously saved notes. This is consistent with annotations, adding minimal extra context.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core action and optional attribute efficiently.

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 simple save operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks clarity on parameter semantics and potential behaviors like handling duplicate saves. It provides adequate high-level context but leaves gaps that the schema annotations do not fill.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only identifies 'notes' as optional and implies candidate_id/resume_id identify a candidate resume. It does not clarify the distinction between candidate_id and resume_id, their format, or how notes are handled. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Save') and clearly identifies the resource ('candidate resume') and destination ('watchlist'), also mentioning optional notes. It fully distinguishes from sibling tools like get_watchlist and search_candidates by indicating a write action to the watchlist.

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?

The description implies usage when one wants to add a candidate resume to a watchlist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is provided, so it relies on the name and context.

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