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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and the POST endpoint disclosure align with the destructiveHint annotation, but largely restate what structured data already conveys. It adds the cross-tool dependency for admin ids, yet says nothing about required permissions, whether the task is immediately visible/notified to assignees, or what happens on invalid candidate_ids.

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 class front-loaded and the endpoint trailing. No filler; every clause carries load.

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, the description should stand alone for a 6-parameter create tool, and it does cover purpose, key inputs, and the id-source dependency. It omits return shape and any error/permission behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: that candidate association is optional, that admin_ids must come from recruitee_list_team_members, and that due_date is optional. The due_date/timezone coupling is left to the schema.

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 ('create a recruiting task') plus scope modifiers (optional candidate link, team-member assignment, optional due date). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like recruitee_list_tasks or recruitee_create_candidate.

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 parenthetical '(admin ids from recruitee_list_team_members)' tells the agent where to obtain valid assignee ids before calling. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer updating an existing task), so it stops short of a 5.

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