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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a real side-effect (no auto-confirmation email is sent) and the default-stage assignment behavior, but omits auth requirements, duplicate-handling, and response 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?

Two tight sentences with the operation type front-loaded ('WRITE:'), then the manual-add semantics and assignment option. No filler; 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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately frames a create tool: purpose, write nature, email behavior, and optional assignment. It stops short of covering edge cases such as duplicate detection, validation failures, or permission requirements.

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 9 parameters. The description only marginally adds to parameter meaning by clarifying that job assignment is optional and lands in the job's default stage, which the offer_ids schema field already states.

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+resource ('add a candidate manually') with scope qualifiers (manual addition, optional job assignment). The 'WRITE' prefix and the POST endpoint make the operation unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like update_candidate or add_candidate_note.

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?

Implies usage via 'manually (as if a recruiter added them in the app — no auto-confirmation email is sent)', which hints at when this path is appropriate versus an invite/email-driven flow. However, it names no alternative sibling tools and states no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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