add_applicant_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it is a WRITE operation, creates a log entry, and the comment cannot be edited or deleted via the API. This provides essential behavioral transparency, though auth requirements or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with critical behavioral details. There is no superfluous content; every word adds value.

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 simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, data persistence, and immutability. It does not specify the return value or error conditions, but the tool name implies successful addition, making it fairly complete.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds behavioral context (write operation, immutability) but does not enhance parameter meaning further. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents all parameters.

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 (Add a comment), the resource (applicant), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applicant_comments by highlighting it as a WRITE operation. It also adds key behavioral context about immutability.

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 use for adding comments but does not explicitly compare with other write tools like create_applicant or attach_applicant_to_vacancy. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or prerequisites.

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