Add note to candidate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context — Claude-authored notes are signed with the configured author name — which helps the agent understand provenance. It still says nothing about what happens with is_sensitive notes or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, purpose first, behavioral nuance second. No filler and nothing that would waste an agent's context.

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 write tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the definition is thin: it omits what is_sensitive does, whether notes are visible to candidates, and what the call returns. Only the author-signing detail is added.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. The ambiguous flag 'is_sensitive' is never explained, and neither 'note' nor 'job_application_id' is clarified beyond what their names imply.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Add a note to a candidate's timeline'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bulk_add_notes, so the singular-vs-bulk distinction is left to inference from the tool name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus bulk_add_notes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only context given is a behavioral detail about note signing, not usage guidance.

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