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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries real weight: it discloses PATCH partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change') and the genuinely dangerous list-replacement behavior ('pass the full list you want'), which an agent could otherwise get wrong and silently wipe emails/phones/links. It also names the underlying endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, no padding, front-loaded with the operation type and the destructive-replacement warning before the endpoint detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description supplies what matters most: partial-update semantics and list-overwrite risk. It omits auth/permission requirements and does not mention the uncovered cover_letter field, leaving a small gap.

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% and each list parameter already says 'Full replacement list', so the baseline is 3. The description goes a step further by consolidating the partial-update rule and warning that omitted fields are untouched while passed lists overwrite, which is a semantic contract the schema does not state field-by-field.

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 (update) and resource (candidate) plus the field scope (name/contact details), which cleanly separates it from recruitee_create_candidate and recruitee_get_candidate. The scope statement slightly understates the schema, since cover_letter is also updatable, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 a mutation, which implicitly routes an agent away from the read siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of reading first via recruitee_get_candidate, and no note about when to prefer the tag/note/stage siblings.

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