Mark Records Available

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: it removes the off-limit state, optionally cascades to related contacts/candidates for companies, and discloses return values including cascade flags. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause adds value (scope, parameters, conditional behavior, return fields). No wasted 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, conditional logic) and that an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, required parameters, conditional behavior, and return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful information by stating that mark_contact_available and mark_candidate_available are required when record_type=company, which is not explicit in the schema (they are only described as 'whether' flags). This clarifies conditional requirement.

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 tool 'Marks Recruit CRM candidates, contacts, or companies as available, which removes their off-limit state.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like mark_candidate_off_limit, mark_contact_off_limit, and mark_company_off_limit.

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 prerequisites and conditional behavior (requires record_type and slugs; for company type, cascade flags are needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly compared to siblings.

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