hires_create_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the candidate must already exist, but does not disclose potential side effects, duplicate handling, or permission requirements. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 create tool with 5 parameters and one nested object, the description covers the primary purpose and key prerequisite. It omits details about optional fields (cv, stage, include) and the expected response, but the schema fully documents parameters, making the description adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, though the phrase 'linking an existing candidate to a job' reinforces the roles of candidate_id and job_id. No extra parameter details are provided.

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 action ('Create an application') and the method ('by linking an existing candidate to a job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update, get, list, or delete applications. It also mentions sourcing workflows, adding clarity on its role.

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 explicitly says 'Use for sourcing workflows and manual application ingestion' and provides a clear prerequisite ('The candidate must already exist'). It does not name alternative tools like create_candidate, but the context is sufficient to guide the agent toward the correct use case.

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