candidate_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a note' (implying a write/mutation operation) and mentions HTML support, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Add a note to a candidate' establishes the action, and 'Supports HTML formatting' adds useful technical detail without redundancy.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (adding notes) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, note ID, error details), behavioral constraints, or integration with sibling tools. For a write operation in a candidate management context, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (candidateId, note, sendNotifications) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'HTML formatting' (implied in the note parameter's schema description) and doesn't provide additional context like format examples or default behavior for sendNotifications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 note') and target resource ('to a candidate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also specifies 'Supports HTML formatting' as a key feature. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'candidate_list_notes' or 'candidate_info', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing candidate), exclusions, or comparisons with related tools like 'candidate_list_notes' (for viewing notes) or 'candidate_add_tag' (for other candidate modifications).

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