add_note_to_candidate

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds 'Write operation,' which is already implied by the verb 'Add.' It doesn't disclose permissions, reversibility, or other side effects beyond saying the note appears in the activity feed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The example utterances and prerequisite are useful and non-redundant, though 'Write operation' is somewhat redundant given the action.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when users would invoke it, and how to get the required ID. It could benefit from noting the visibility options, but those are in the schema.

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 schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to locate candidate_id via search_candidates_by_name, which goes beyond the schema. Body and visibility are adequately documented 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 action ('Add a text note') and the target resource ('candidate's activity feed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_tag_to_candidate by specifying it's a text note. The 'Write operation' phrase reinforces the mutation intent.

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 provides concrete user utterances ('add a note to Sarah's profile') that signal when to use this tool, and points to search_candidates_by_name as the way to obtain the required candidate_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like add_tag_to_candidate.

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