hires_disqualify_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the mutation ('Disqualify'), the scope ('all active applications'), and the output ('Returns affected application IDs'). However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). This is a notable gap 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the action, the second covers optional input and return value. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description covers the essential context: the scope of affected applications, optional inputs, and return value. It does not mention reversibility or related tools, but the core usage context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already clearly described in the schema. The description only repeats that reasons are optional, which is already evident from the schema's required array. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action: 'Disqualify a candidate from all active applications.' It specifies the resource (candidate), the scope (all active applications), and the optional parameter (rejection reason IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_reject_application, which operate on single applications.

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 phrase 'all active applications' clearly implies when to use this tool – when you need to disqualify a candidate across every active application rather than one application at a time. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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