manage_blocklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses persistence ('memory'), the supported actions, the company vs keyword matching behavior, and important side effects—blocked jobs are hidden from search and refused by start_application until removed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then efficiently covers operations, parameter mapping, and side effects without filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, operations, parameter semantics, and cross-tool effects. The only minor omission is what the list action returns, which is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 fully compensates: action is defined as add|remove|list, kind distinguishes company vs keyword, value is the company name or keyword, and reason is quoted context. This adds real meaning to every parameter in 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 clearly identifies the tool as an employer/recruiter exclusion memory and specifies its operations: add, remove, and list. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining its effect on search results and start_application refusals.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: when the user says 'never apply to <company>', use action=add with the corresponding fields. It also explains keyword-based blocking. No explicit alternative is needed because no sibling tool provides this exclusion-memory function.

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