candidate_add_tag

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. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the tag already exists, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both serve clear purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides implementation guidance. There's zero wasted language and it's appropriately front-loaded with the primary action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or important behavioral characteristics. While concise, it leaves too many contextual gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying that tag IDs should be obtained from 'candidate_tag_list', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter formats, validation, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Add a tag') and target resource ('to a candidate'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'candidate_create_note' or 'candidate_tag_list' beyond mentioning the latter as a prerequisite.

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 provides implied usage guidance by referencing 'candidate_tag_list' as a way to find tag IDs, suggesting this tool should be used after tag discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the tag ID requirement.

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