job104_prepare_application

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it does not submit automatically and requires human confirmation. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other safety aspects like authentication, reversibility, or side effects, and the description is relatively thin.

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 concise sentences, one specifying the action and one specifying the human-in-the-loop caveat. 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?

The tool has a simple purpose and complete schema coverage. The description covers the core behavior and human confirmation requirement, but could mention return values or prerequisites. Overall, 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics, but none are needed given 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 clearly states the tool opens the application window and fills in information, specifying the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but siblings are search and get_details, so the purpose is distinct by name and context.

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 notes it is a helper that requires human final confirmation, implying it should be used as a step before manual submission. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus search or get_details, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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