Add a candidate

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully adds the vacancy_id fallback behavior (general candidates pool), which is real context beyond the annotations. It does not cover required-field enforcement, side effects on other records, or what a successful call returns.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the primary action leads while the conditional detail follows. Efficient for the amount of content it chooses to deliver.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with 8% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot infer required fields, field formats, or the meaning of the majority of parameters from it, even though the vacancy_id behavior is well handled.

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 only 8% across 12 parameters, so the description carries almost the whole burden and does not meet it. It only clarifies vacancy_id, leaving first_name/last_name/email requirements, sourced, and the other eight fields undocumented. This is a clear compensation failure.

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 (create) and the actual resource ("a job application"), then grounds it with concrete examples (sourced on LinkedIn, met at an event). There is mild tension between the tool name "create_candidate" and the described resource "job application," but the description resolves it better than the title does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other creation-adjacent siblings.

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 examples imply the sourcing use case, and the second sentence gives the key conditional (omitting vacancy_id routes the candidate to the general pool). However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not condition, so routing among update_candidate/add_note/upload_candidate_file is left to inference.

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