Track Application

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds pipeline stage progression (applied → phone_screen → interview → offer / rejected / withdrawn) and remove=true flag for un-tracking, going beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers primary purpose and actions. Second sentence provides URL and concrete usage examples. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key behaviors: adding, advancing, noting, and removing applications. Explains stage enum as a pipeline. Lacks return value description, but not required without output schema. The context is sufficient for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds extra context: explains url as convenience alternative, jobId must be verbatim from search_jobs, notes maxLength, and stage as pipeline progression. This adds meaningful value 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Track a job application' and resource 'authenticated user's pipeline'. Lists specific actions: mark applied, advance stage, attach notes, un-track. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it powers the Kanban pipeline at hirejack.com/saved.html.

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?

Explicit usage examples: 'when the user says I applied to this, move Stripe to interview, or log that I got an offer'. Implicitly covers when not to use (e.g., looking up applications would use list_applications). Differentiates from sibling tools.

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