bulk_add_notesAdd one note per candidate in one go, such as a screening summary or rejection-email date, to update multiple applicant records at once.
Add one note per candidate in one go, e.g. a screening summary or 'rejection email sent on '.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description need not restate that. However, for a bulk write it discloses nothing about failure semantics (all-or-nothing vs partial), duplicate-note behavior, or the 200-item cap implied by the schema—context an agent calling a bulk mutation genuinely needs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the bulk semantics and illustrative examples; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations describing mutation semantics, yet a bulk-write tool of this shape needs to address capacity limits, per-item failure handling, and the is_sensitive field. The description covers the happy-path intent only, which is thin for a 200-item mutation.
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% and there is one top-level array parameter, so the description carries some burden. It does convey the critical pairing model (one note per candidate) and gives example note text, but says nothing about the per-item fields job_application_id or is_sensitive, leaving the sensitivity flag entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add one note per candidate in one go') and makes the bulk nature explicit, which cleanly separates it from the sibling add_note (single) and bulk_move_candidates (different resource). The examples of note content further pin down what a 'note' is here.
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 phrase 'in one go' plus examples like a screening summary or 'rejection email sent on <date>' imply the intended bulk-recording scenario, but the description never states when to prefer this over add_note or whether a single-candidate call should use this tool. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.