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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that no auto-confirmation email is sent and that assigned jobs default to the job's default stage. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent cannot get from annotations or schema, though it doesn't cover return values (none exist) or list-limit behavior.

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?

One sentence plus a short endpoint reference, front-loading the WRITE marker and core purpose with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (no confirmation email, default-stage assignment) and the endpoint. It leaves minor gaps around error behavior and the exact effect of offer_ids, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the notion that offer_ids map to jobs/talent pools and default-stage assignment, but does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (create/add) and resource (candidate), and the parenthetical clarifies the exact creation mode: manual entry as if a recruiter added them, distinguishing it from an import or application-driven flow. An agent can distinguish it from recruitee_update_candidate or recruitee_add_candidate_note without further inspection.

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?

Explains that the candidate is added manually with no auto-confirmation email sent, which is clear context for choosing this over an application-based flow. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like recruitee_assign_candidate_to_offer, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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