Add job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: required fields, default values for status and date_applied, custom column handling via extra_fields, and backup creation before writing. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but the provided context is strong.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then covering defaults, custom fields, and backup behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers the critical aspects: required fields, defaults, custom column usage, and backup safety. It does not describe return values or error handling, but the essential operational details are present.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces defaults and explains extra_fields, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Append a new job application row') and identifies the resource ('job application row'). It also specifies required fields (Company and Position), which helps distinguish it from update/delete/list operations.

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 this is for creating new job entries and mentions extra_fields for custom columns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_job or delete_job. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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