Anotar en una oferta

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), and the description confirms notes accumulate without overwriting. It adds that notes are dated (timestamped) and placed in a specific section, going beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail return behavior or error cases.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second provides context on content and behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits (accumulation, dating). Given the sibling tools, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'note'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats that notes accumulate (behavior) but adds no additional semantic detail about the parameters themselves (e.g., format, constraints beyond schema). Baseline of 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 tool adds a dated note to the 'Notas de entrevista' section of an offer. It specifies the kind of content suitable for the note (interviewer, questions asked, feedback, anything to review before next round). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_skill_level or confirm_skill.

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 explains that notes accumulate and never overwrite, which is a key usage behavior. It implicitly tells when to use (for interview-related notes) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or specify when not to use. Still, it provides clear context for use.

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