apply_followup

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

The description discloses that no network calls are made and sending requires human confirmation, which adds transparency. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover potential state changes, required permissions, or side effects on the application object, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behaviors. No filler or redundant information.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, output schema exists), the description is too brief. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., application must be in a certain stage, follow_up_sent flag), jargon like 'Phase 4b', and what the output scaffold includes. Output schema may compensate for return values, but context is lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already documents both parameters (app and lang) with descriptions. Thus no extra value.

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 tool drafts a polite follow-up message scaffold for an application, using specific verb (draft) and resource (follow-up message scaffold). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_cover_letter and interview_thank_you by focusing on follow-up.

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 implies usage by mentioning human-confirmed sending and no network calls, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites like application stage.

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