create_applicant

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation, creates duplicates on repeat calls (no idempotency), and the response includes a 'doubles[]' array. This goes beyond minimal requirements given the lack of annotations.

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 three concise sentences covering purpose, required fields, resume integration, and duplicate behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 14 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers key aspects: required fields, resume handling, and duplicate detection. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the full response structure beyond 'doubles[]', but this is acceptable for a create tool with a well-documented 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining how to provide resume text (externals[].data.body) and file IDs (from upload_resume), highlighting non-idempotency, and directing attention to 'doubles[]' in the response. This clarifies usage patterns not obvious from schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool creates an applicant card via POST /applicants, specifying it as a WRITE operation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list, search, get, update) by being the only creation endpoint for applicants.

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 lists required fields (first_name, last_name) and explains resume handling via text and file IDs. It warns about duplicate creation and mentions checking the 'doubles[]' response field. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, as the sole applicant creation tool, the context is clear.

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