hires_send_candidate_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default scheduling behavior, which is valuable, but does not mention side effects (e.g., actual email send), permissions, or error handling. The scheduling nuance is disclosed, so it meets a minimum bar but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and zero wasted words. It states the essential purpose and the key default behavior compactly.

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?

The description covers the core function and a critical default, but given 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, it leaves some context implicit, such as the return value, prerequisites (e.g., valid candidate ID), and behavior on failure. However, the schema covers parameter details well, so the description 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of all 11 parameters with descriptive text. The description adds the default timing for scheduled_at, but the schema already specifies this same detail. Therefore, the description does not provide significant added meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Schedule') and resource ('email message to a candidate'), which precisely states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sending/scheduling messages to candidates, not other entities or list operations.

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 clearly communicates the scheduling context and the key default behavior (scheduled 15 minutes after creation if omitted). It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting it over generic message tools.

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