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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's explicit 'WRITE:' marker usefully confirms this is a mutation rather than a read. The 'visible to the team' clause adds real behavioral context about visibility that no structured field conveys. It still omits reversibility, permission requirements, and the fact that adding a note does not obviously match the destructive hint's implication.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mutation marker and API endpoint front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers the action, the target, visibility, and the backing endpoint. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on when this is the right tool versus sibling write operations.

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% and both parameters (candidate_id, body) are documented with types, bounds, and descriptions in the schema. The description only alludes to the target ('a candidate's profile') and adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('add a note to a candidate's profile') and adds the scope qualifier 'visible to the team'. This clearly separates it from the sibling recruitee_list_candidate_notes (read) and other candidate-mutation tools.

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 says what happens but never when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as recruitee_add_candidate_tags, recruitee_update_candidate, or recruitee_create_task. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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