record_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: idempotent per URL, meaning repeated calls are safe. It also explains the effect on the copilot's surfacing behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential error cases or authentication requirements.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and every word adds value. The first sentence states what it does and why; the second adds a critical behavioral detail. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description only partially covers the domain. It clearly explains the purpose and idempotency, and the output schema covers return values, but the lack of parameter semantics for 'notes' and 'method' leaves out information needed for full autonomous use. The simple nature of the tool means the description is adequate overall, but it is not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only touches on two parameters: 'url' via 'Idempotent per URL' and 'channel' via 'any channel'. The parameters 'notes' and 'method' are not explained at all, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose and acceptable values. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add sufficient semantics for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('application submission') and explicitly states the purpose: to prevent the copilot from re-surfacing the posting. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the HUMAN submitter and 'any channel', and adds the idempotent-per-URL trait, making it clear what this tool does and why it exists.

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 clear context: use this tool when the human has submitted an application (via any channel) and you want the copilot to stop surfacing the posting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough to indicate when it is appropriate relative to related tools like start_application or record_outcome.

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