Promote lead to tracker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key side effects: copying fields, overridable defaults, notes derived from salary/match unless overridden, optional deletion of the lead, and backup of both files. It does not mention error handling or return format, but the major behaviors are transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: four short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information (core purpose, notes default, optional deletion, backup). No filler or redundancy, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 cross-sheet promotion tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main workflow, defaults, optional behavior, and backup. It omits return value and error handling, but the schema covers parameter details, making the description reasonably complete for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying default behaviors for status, date_applied, notes, and remove_from_discovery, and explains how notes derive from salary/match if not supplied. This supplements the schema with practical semantics.

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's purpose: 'Turn a discovery lead into a tracked application' and enumerates specific actions (copies Company, Position, Job Link, Location; sets Status and Date Applied). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_job or discovery_add, which operate on single sheets.

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 conveys a clear use case (promoting a discovery lead to a tracker) and mentions optional removal from the discovery sheet, which implies workflow context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_job or discovery_update, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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