Pitch Candidate To Contact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the duplicate-prevention check ('Checks existing candidate/contact pitch records unless allow_duplicate=true') and the fact that no email is sent, preventing a false expectation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, requirements+duplicate behavior, and the email caveat. No filler.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, requirements, duplicate handling, and a critical limitation (no email). With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. A minor gap is that it doesn't state the exact outcome if duplicate checks fail, but this is acceptable for a well-scoped action.

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 meaning by tying allow_duplicate to its behavior: it bypasses the duplicate check. It also confirms the required parameters in the first sentence, reinforcing the schema.

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+resource: 'Marks one Recruit CRM candidate as pitched to one contact.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pitch_history (read) or update_candidate_pitch_stage (stage change).

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 implies when to use via the action itself and adds an explicit exclusion: 'the API does not send an email.' However, it doesn't mention alternative tools for related operations like viewing pitch history or updating pitch stage.

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