Dismiss a recruit

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

The description discloses a concrete behavioral effect: the persona and history are moved to <state>/.dismissed/. It does not state whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or side effects such as removal from active rosters. With no annotations to cover these, this is partial transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and consequence. The description is concise with no wasted words, serving its purpose efficiently.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides necessary invocation context: the action and the resulting state change. It lacks guidance on reversibility or how this fits with sibling tools, but the operation is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 'name' only as a string without explanation, and description coverage is 0%. The description refers to 'a recruit' but never explicitly says the name parameter identifies the recruit, so it does not compensate for the schema gap. The mapping is inferrable but not stated.

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 uses the verb 'Archive' with the resource 'a recruit' and specifies the result: persona and history move to <state>/.dismissed/. This clearly separates it from other recruit-management tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 implies the use case: when a recruit should be archived. It does not mention alternative tools or conditions to avoid, leaving the agent to infer when this should be chosen over other operations like rollback_persona or update_persona.

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