Record notes on a job application for details like interviewer name, follow-up date, or salary info; provide the job ID and note content to keep application tracking organized.
Add a note to a job application. Use this when the user wants to record information about a job (e.g., interviewer name, follow-up date, salary info).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID to add a note to | |
| content | Yes | The note content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (adding a note) but says nothing about whether notes are appended vs. overwritten, whether the job must already exist, permission requirements, or error behavior. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage trigger. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (2 documented params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers purpose and trigger. It omits how the new note relates to existing notes and the sibling update_job_note/delete_job_note, which is the main remaining gap for an agent choosing between them.
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 both job_id and content are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's examples (interviewer name, follow-up date, salary info) add mild color about suitable content but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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+resource: 'Add a note to a job application.' An agent immediately knows what is created and against which entity. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools update_job_note and delete_job_note, so it falls short of 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?
Gives a concrete trigger condition ("Use this when the user wants to record information about a job") plus illustrative examples of the kind of content intended. It does not mention when NOT to use it or point to update_job_note for modifying existing notes, so no explicit alternatives routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.