add_employment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: 'Write operation.' It also reveals that Greenhouse requires company_name, title and start_date even though the schema marks them optional/null-defaulted — real behavioral information not visible in the schema. It omits what happens on duplicate entries or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the mutation nature, then the constraint and the lookup hint. Every sentence earns its place, though the line-break formatting is slightly choppy.

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 write tool with no annotations, the description covers the mutation semantics, the effective required fields, and how to obtain the required candidate_id, and an output schema exists to explain returns. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, permissions) are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that company_name, title and start_date are effectively required by Greenhouse despite the schema's null defaults and single-required-parameter list. That corrects a potentially misleading schema signal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an employment entry to a candidate'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like add_education and remove_employment. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides one concrete routing instruction for a prerequisite ('To find candidate_id: search_candidates_by_name'), which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (add_education, remove_employment) or any preconditions beyond the ID lookup.

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