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

Beyond annotations it discloses the two facts that matter most for a write tool: an authentication requirement (techjobs.vn sign-in) and that the action sends an external email to real referrers, which cannot be recalled. It does not explain why destructiveHint is true or what state changes alongside the email, leaving some of the mutation's consequences to inference.

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 short sentences, with the auth and status preconditions front-loaded before the action, and the email side effect called out last. The colon-separated construction in the middle sentence is slightly dense but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter, single-action tool with an output schema, the description covers authentication, ownership, required status, the exact payload sent, and the external-email side effect — everything needed to call it correctly. Only the precise state transition after success (and any rate limits on notifying referrers) is left out.

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% and the single parameter already documents that the id must come from list_referral_requests. The description reinforces ownership and the needs_changes precondition but adds no new identifier format or lookup guidance, so it matches the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb (sends/resubmits) and specific resource (the user's current primary CV, CV chính) to a specific audience (the referrers at the company), gated on a named request status (needs_changes). That is far more specific than the title alone, though it never names an alternative sibling such as confirm_referral_contact or mark_referral_request_referred, so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the status gate.

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 description gives a clear applicability condition: the request must be one the signed-in user sent and a referrer must have asked to change it, with status needs_changes. It does not state what to do instead when the status is something else (e.g., use confirm_referral_contact or report_referral_request), so there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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