ats_generate_demo_data

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a complete ATSState with sample data, but does not detail side effects or permissions. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence adds usage context. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

For a generative tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it generates (jobs, candidates, interviews, offers) and its return type (ATSState). Could mention output format more, but sufficient for context.

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% (one parameter documented). The description does not mention the 'includeStats' parameter, but the schema description already covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is added.

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 'Generate a full set of realistic demo data for the ATS', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ats_manage_jobs which manage existing data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for testing, demonstrations, or populating an empty ATS instance', providing clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough to infer when not to use.

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