push_to_ats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two modes (replace vs. attach) and notes the destructive possibility of replacing stale CVs. However, it does not mention authentication, failure behavior, or integration prerequisites.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and lacks filler. The second sentence adds useful context without bloating the text.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description covers the main purpose, target systems, and replacement/attachment behavior. It does not explain candidate_id, response/error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., active ATS integration), so it is not fully complete.

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 the description partially compensates by mapping formatted_cv_id to 'formatted FormaCV document,' ats to the three named ATS platforms, and attach_as to replacing/attaching. The required candidate_id is not described, leaving a gap.

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 a specific action (push) and resource (formatted FormaCV document) with explicit target systems (Bullhorn, JobAdder, Vincere). It distinguishes this tool from sibling formatting tools by focusing on the ATS push-back step.

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 clear context that this is used to return a formatted CV to an ATS, keeping recruiters in their workflow. It implies use after formatting but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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