recruiter_draft_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a language-specific addition (RGPD line) but omits details like whether the draft is saved, requires authentication, or the nature of the 'scaffold' (e.g., template structure). The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is insufficient.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint (French RGPD). Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the return structure is covered. However, the description lacks context about the tool's scope (e.g., it drafts for a recruiter, but what about the candidate's perspective?), prerequisites, or potential side effects. It is minimally adequate for a simple drafting tool but could be more informative.

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%, with each parameter adequately documented in the schema. The tool description adds the nuance that 'lang' defaults to 'fr' and mentions the RGPD line, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Draft an outreach message scaffold') and the target user ('for a recruiter'). It also adds a distinctive detail about French drafts including an RGPD opt-out line, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like recruiter_find_contact or interviewer tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_draft_intro_request, apply_cover_letter). The description implies it's for recruiter outreach but does not mention exclusions or specific contexts.

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