hr_recruiting_pipeline_loop

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

Annotations already flag the tool as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds routing and scope context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not say what behaviors or side effects the pipeline loop can have beyond that.

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 text is terse, but not effective: the opening sentence repeats the tool name, the second describes internal routing, and the Args section only rephrases the schema property names. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

A destructive, open-world pipeline loop is referenced without explaining its goal, stages, side effects, or success criteria. The output schema exists, but the agent still lacks enough information to decide when to call this tool or what objective to provide.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only glosses the fields as 'free-text objective' and 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. It does not explain the expected shape, relevant keys, or how the message/inputs combine to drive the pipeline.

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 says only 'Run the hr domain agent action recruiting_pipeline_loop' and describes routing through the dispatcher. That restates the tool name without explaining what the recruiting pipeline loop actually does, and it doesn't distinguish this from the many other hr_* and loop tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like hr_live_recruiting_applications, hr_live_advance_application, greenhouse_advance_application, or dispatch_domain_agent. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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