Assign Candidate To Job

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the baseline is lower. The description adds context about the default 'Assigned' stage, unsupported features, and the need to use another tool for non-default stages. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior, though it could mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing assignment.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists limitations and the alternative tool. It is front-loaded, precise, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the simple 3-parameter tool, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, requirements, limitations, and alternatives. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the required parameters (candidate_slug, job_slug, updated_by) but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. It implies that no stage parameter exists because only the default stage is used, which is useful context but not directly parameter-specific.

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 'Assigns one Recruit CRM candidate to one job at the default Assigned hiring stage,' specifying the verb (assigns), resource (Recruit CRM candidate and job), and scope (default stage). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting unsupported features and directing to update_candidate_hiring_stage.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (for default-stage assignment) and when not to use it: 'Does not support remarks, explicit stage selection, stage_date, or create_placement' and 'use update_candidate_hiring_stage afterward when a non-default stage or remark is needed.' This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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