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

Explicitly discloses idempotency and conflict behavior ('Idempotent when already linked to the same Job; conflicts when linked elsewhere') and required permissions ('requires jobs:write and the artifact's own write scope'). This goes beyond annotations, which only indicate idempotentHint, adding crucial context for correct invocation.

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 concise sentences, each adding critical information: the action and object, idempotency and conflict behavior, and permission requirements. No fluff, very efficient.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essence: what it does, when it's safe, and what permissions are needed. The remaining parameters are standard (IDs, keys) and need no further explanation. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies the artifact types (matching the enum) and the linkage semantics. However, it does not explain the purpose of 'request_id' or 'idempotency_key', which are non-obvious. Still, the key parameters are covered sufficiently.

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?

Clearly states the tool links an artifact (interview plan, job posting, application) to a Job. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'detach_artifact' and other job operations, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Describes the context of linking artifacts to jobs, and implicitly distinguishes from detach_artifact (via name). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or alternatives beyond the sibling name, leaving some inference to the agent.

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