ats_manage_notes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's listing of actions (some destructive, some read) adds context but is not critical. The description does not disclose details like rate limits, authorization needs, or the impact of operations beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence lists actions efficiently. However, the phrase 'Pass the current candidates record' is a bit abrupt and could be integrated more smoothly.

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 (multiple actions) and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks crucial information about return values for each action (e.g., what list returns, confirmation for delete) and does not explain the structure of the 'candidates' record beyond being 'current'. This leaves the agent guessing about expected inputs and outputs.

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 schema describes both parameters, but the description goes further by explaining the meaning of each action type (e.g., 'create note on candidate') and emphasizing that the 'candidates' parameter requires the current record. This adds value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as managing candidate notes in the ATS. It lists six specific actions (add, update, list, delete, search, bulk_add) that distinguish it from sibling tools like ats_manage_candidates or ats_manage_jobs, which handle different resources.

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 the instruction 'Pass the current candidates record,' hinting at a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use each action or when to avoid this tool. The actions are self-explanatory via their names, but no alternatives or exclusions are given for scenarios like searching vs. listing.

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