Mark Company Off-Limit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add nuance. It explains that mark_contact_off_limit and mark_candidate_off_limit control whether related records are also marked off-limit, and it discloses the return fields. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without 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?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists requirements, and the third explains side effects and returns. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important 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 tool's complexity (6 params, destructive action, output schema present), the description covers purpose, required parameters, side effects, and return values. The only notable omission is reference to alternative tools or reversibility, but this is partially addressed by the sibling list and annotations. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description restates some constraints (e.g., end_date format, max 25 slugs) and explains the boolean semantics, but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 up to 25 Recruit CRM companies as off-limit.' It uses a specific verb (marks), identifies the resource (companies), and includes a scope (up to 25). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target candidates or contacts.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_candidate_off_limit or mark_records_available. It only states what it does and lists required parameters. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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