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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the side effect on the saved state and the confirmation gate. It could go further by saying exactly what clearing destroys (the applied mark only, not the saved job) in explicit terms, but 'clearing keeps it saved' largely covers this.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then the safety precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the confirmation gate, the save-state side effect, and the service's non-submitting nature. The remaining gap is the mapping of the applied flag to mark vs. clear, which leaves the parameter behavior underspecified.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters — yet it never names job_id or applied, never states that applied=false is the clearing operation, and never mentions the default of true. 'Or clear that mark' only implicitly gestures at the boolean; an agent must read the schema to map intent to argument.

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 ('Record that the user applied to a job') and covers both directions of the toggle ('or clear that mark'). It also explains the relationship to the adjacent save_job behavior ('Marking also saves the job; clearing keeps it saved'), so an agent can distinguish it from save_job without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call after the user confirms they submitted the application themselves,' plus a scope exclusion ('Offpeak never submits applications'). It does not name save_job or other siblings as alternatives, but the side-effect sentence makes the division of labor clear enough.

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