hires_hire_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key mutation: the application status changes to 'hired' and hired_at is set. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or consequences beyond these two fields. The word 'finalization' hints at irreversibility but is not explicit, so the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the specific effects. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource and remains highly concise, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description explains the core behavior and its effects on the application. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., current status) or side effects beyond the two stated fields, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. It is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (id and include). Therefore, the description adds no extra value over the schema, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Mark an application as hired') and the resource ('application'). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by labeling this as 'the finalization step in a hiring workflow' and specifying the effects (status changes to 'hired' and hired_at is set). This differentiates it from other application-status tools like reject, advance, or move.

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 'finalization step in a hiring workflow' provides clear context about when to use this tool—namely, when an application has reached the point of being officially hired. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is for the final hiring decision, distinguishing it from rejection or intermediate moves.

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