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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real specifics beyond them, notably that listed properties are overwritten and that an empty choices list clears all selections unless append_choices is true. It doesn't mention auth requirements or partial-failure behavior, but the overwrite semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Four tight sentences front-loaded with 'WRITE', followed by the branching rule, the clearing caveat, the overwrite warning, and the endpoint. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameters, the clearing/append edge cases, and the overwrite effect, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing only surrounding operational context such as error handling or response shape, which is minor.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description earns its keep: it specifies DATE format yyyy-MM-dd, the value-vs-choices split keyed on property type, and the empty-list/append_choices interaction, all of which add meaning beyond the nested schema descriptions. candidate_id semantics are 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 ('set custom property values') on a specific resource ('a candidate'), and prefixes 'WRITE' to immediately flag the operation class. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tool taleez_get_candidate_properties and from taleez_update_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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: use 'value' for properties without choices, 'choices' for properties with choices, and routes the agent to taleez_list_candidate_properties to obtain choice ids. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with taleez_update_candidate, but the property-scoped context is clear.

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