Add or Update Job Application

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, and it does so well. It reveals important side effects: the tool upserts the applicant by email, falls back to a company default stage on invalid stage names, and keys custom form answers by field names from the job listing. It does not discuss return values or authentication requirements, but the disclosed edge cases are valuable.

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 sentences that are efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a key side effect and edge-case behavior, and the third clarifies how a parameter should be used. No information is redundant with the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity — 7 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers the essential behaviors and edge cases well. It explains the upsert side effect, stage fallback, and custom form keying, but it does not describe the response shape or any prerequisites. This is adequate for invocation, but not exhaustive.

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?

Since the schema already describes all 7 parameters at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how custom_form_answers map to get_job fields and how stage_name handling falls back to a default. This elevates the parameter guidance above what structured data alone offers.

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 opens with 'Create a new job application or update an existing one,' giving a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates from sibling tools like save_applicant or get_application. It further clarifies scope by noting it also upserts the applicant by email, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool — when creating or updating a job application — but does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling save_applicant or explain when to prefer one over the other. It does hint at related workflow via 'see get_job' for custom form answers, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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