hires_publish_to_job_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait ('Sets boards to activation queue state'), which goes beyond a generic 'publish' claim. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or effects on already-active boards, leaving several operational unknowns.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences convey purpose, state change, and usage context. There is zero fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the resulting state, and when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of response behavior or edge cases, but the essential context for invocation and selection is present.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail about parameters; it only paraphrases 'boards' as 'selected job boards'. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 verb ('Activate') and the resource ('selected job boards for a job'), and specifies the unique behavior of setting boards to an activation queue state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hires_remove_from_job_board and hires_batch_publish_to_boards by emphasizing 'controlled multi-board publishing workflows'.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use for controlled multi-board publishing workflows.' This implies when to use it versus batch alternatives, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it over batch tools.

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