hires_batch_create_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral details: items are processed independently (one failure does not stop others) and per-candidate RBAC is enforced. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether messages are sent immediately or only scheduled), error handling, or return format, which are important for a write operation.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds useful information, from the batch limit to independence and RBAC.

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?

While the description covers purpose, scale, and key behavioral traits, it is incomplete for a batch mutation tool. It does not describe how results or partial failures are returned, whether messages are sent immediately or scheduled for future delivery, or any rate limits beyond the 100-message cap. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail is needed for full operational clarity.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all properties, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by noting that each item specifies its own candidate_id and payload, but this is already evident from the schema. It does not clarify semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates up to 100 scheduled messages in one request, with a specific verb, resource, and scale limit. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like hires_send_candidate_message by emphasizing the batch aspect.

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 implies usage for batch scheduling but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like the singular send-candidate-message tool. It provides useful context such as independent processing and per-candidate RBAC, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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