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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing important side effects: a version is recorded, later edits to the template do not affect already-started hires, and a missing template is auto-created from the provided tasks. This is meaningful behavioral context for a mutating tool.

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?

Three sentences deliver all the essential information: the action, the free/Pro distinction, version recording, immutability of existing hires, and fallback template creation. No filler or redundancy.

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 description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers scope, versioning, post-edit behavior, and template creation. However, it does not mention return values or edge cases like re-applying a template to a hire that already has tasks, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the hire plurality and the tasks fallback behavior but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the input schema already documents for each parameter.

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 clearly identifies the operation as applying a role template to a hire, specifies the main effect (copying tasks into the hire), and notes the version-recording behavior. It is distinct from sibling tools like onboarding_task_add or onboarding_hire_add because it operates on templates and hires at the template level.

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 gives clear usage context: one hire on free plans, many on Pro, and automatic template creation when none exists. It does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the intended use case is clear enough to select it correctly.

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