add_candidate_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It merely restates the tool name and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is additive, idempotent, requires permissions, or returns a result.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple mutation tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.

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 simple schema and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out important context like side effects, return values, and usage conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters, with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('a note to a candidate'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on search/retrieval/feedback. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description only states the action without contextual cues.

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