add_job_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the note is timestamped and that the operation does not change status, which is a meaningful side-effect boundary. It does not discuss auth or failure modes, but for a simple two-parameter append operation it provides the key behavioral contract.

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 one well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, provides helpful examples in parentheses, and ends with an important caveat. Every part 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 tool with two required string parameters and an output schema, this description covers the core purpose, example content, and the key side-effect exclusion. It omits explicit prerequisites like authentication or job ownership, but those are not necessary for basic selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the note parameter via concrete examples, but job_id is only inferable from the phrase 'tracked job' and receives no explicit format or ownership guidance. This is partial, not complete, compensation.

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 specific verb ('Append') with a clear resource ('timestamped note to a tracked job') and gives concrete examples. The explicit caveat 'without changing its status' clearly separates this tool from update_job_status, so an agent can identify its purpose unambiguously.

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 examples (recruiter name, interview date, salary discussed) clarify what kind of content belongs in a note, and the phrase 'without changing its status' implies it should be used when status mutation is not intended. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like update_job_status, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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