Create Candidate

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations, the description details duplicate-check behavior (by email, contact_number, linkedin), error payload contents (candidate_slug, candidate_id), file-acceptance rules (URL or base64 for resume, URL-only for custom file fields), and return behavior (compact summary with partial-success details). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 a dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then covers prerequisites, duplicate handling, ID resolution, and file rules. It is appropriately sized for a complex 44-parameter tool, but could benefit from bullet points or sectioning for easier scanning.

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 high parameter count and existing output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: field requirements, duplicate policy, file constraints, ID resolution, and response summary. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult external documentation.

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%, but the description adds meaningful cross-references for resolving parameter values (e.g., language_skills with list_languages_and_proficiencies, custom field IDs with list_custom_fields). It also reinforces required fields and file-type restrictions, adding value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates one Recruit CRM candidate'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_candidate and search_candidates by specifying the creation action and the optional work/education history creation.

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?

It explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires at least one of first_name or last_name, plus owner_id and created_by') and provides direct guidance on resolving IDs via sibling tools (list_users, list_currencies, etc.). It also clarifies when duplicates are allowed ('unless allow_duplicate=true'), giving clear use conditions.

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