hires_create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses visibility control and @mention email notifications, but omits authentication requirements, return value, side effects, or any prerequisite conditions. This is only partial disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then mentions two key options. There is no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 operation with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key features but omits details like return payload, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 value by explicitly explaining the visibility and @mention behaviors, reinforcing the semantics of the 'visibility' and 'mention_user_ids' parameters beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'discussion note for a candidate', which is specific and unambiguous. It also highlights distinguishing features (visibility control and @mentions), separating it from sibling note operations like get, update, delete, and list.

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 creating candidate notes, especially when visibility control or @mentions are needed, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Since sibling note CRUD tools exist, explicit differentiation would improve clarity.

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