Mark Candidate Off-Limit

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the 25-candidate limit, required fields, and the return payload (updated slug list, status_id, end_date, reason, API remark). This goes beyond the annotations and clearly sets expectations for the tool's side effects.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently covers requirements and return values. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 destructive annotation, an output schema, and a relatively simple set of parameters, the description provides sufficient coverage: batch size, required fields, date format, optional parameter, and return payload. It does not mention side effects or how to obtain status_id, but those are handled by the annotations and schema. Minor gaps remain, but the description is strong overall.

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?

Since the schema has 100% coverage of parameters, the description does not need to add much. It reiterates the required fields and date format but does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as how to resolve status_id or what the 'reason' field is for. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Marks'), the resource type ('Recruit CRM candidates'), and the specific operation ('as off-limit'), which differentiates it from similar tools like mark_contact_off_limit and mark_company_off_limit. It also adds the batch limit of 25, which is a useful detail.

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 by specifying the target entity as candidates, making it obvious when to use this tool over sibling tools for contacts or companies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a candidate should be made available again (mark_records_available).

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