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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the note becomes visible to the hiring team, cannot be removed with this server, and is not sent to the candidate. These side-effect and persistence facts are exactly the context an agent needs for an irreversible-looking write, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Leading 'WRITE:' tag front-loads the critical operation class, and every subsequent clause carries distinct information (visibility, removability, candidate impact, endpoint/scope). No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the important behavioral facts (team visibility, non-removability, no candidate notification, endpoint and scope). It omits the is_sensitive parameter's effect and any response shape, but the core call-correctly information is present.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the 1-2000 char limits and display_name default. The description restates the character range and author semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('WRITE: add ONE note to one application'), and the 'ONE' / 'one application' framing plus the sibling set (list_notes, get_application) makes the single-write semantics unambiguous. An agent can tell this apart from the read/list siblings instantly.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals the operation class and the note-creation intent is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the list_notes alternative, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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