ats_manage_candidates

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that it returns updated candidates and a summary, but does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or rollback behavior. With annotations bearing the main safety signal, the description provides marginal additional context.

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 efficient sentences, first enumerating supported operations and second explaining usage. No wasted words, but could be more structured with clearer separation of actions and parameters.

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 tool with multiple complex actions and nested parameters, the description covers the return value (updated candidates and summary) and the input pattern. It lacks error handling or idempotency notes, but given the rich schema and annotations, completeness is adequate.

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% and the description reiterates that candidates should be the current record. The description adds a slight reminder, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the already detailed action schema, so 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 tool manages candidates in an ATS pipeline and lists specific operations (add, update, delete, move, bulk move, list/filter). This distinguishes it from generic candidate management tools like 'manage_candidates' but lacks explicit differentiation from 'ats_manage_jobs'.

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 basic usage guidance ('Pass the current candidates record and an action to perform') but neither specifies when to use this tool over siblings nor offers exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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