bulk_create_job_openings

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 meaningful traits: it is a write operation, it requires admin privileges, and it is asynchronous with a deferred result. It omits batch-size limits, partial-failure semantics, and idempotency, which matter for a bulk mutation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then permissions, then return/follow-up and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an async bulk mutation, the description covers the operation, the auth requirement, the return artifact, and the polling tool, and an output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out. Missing only edge-case behavior such as partial failures or limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so both openings and callback_url are already documented in the schema, including the nested field breakdown and the callback's purpose. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 with scope ('Create many openings in one asynchronous request'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the single-item sibling create_job_opening. An agent can distinguish it from bulk_update_job_openings and create_job_opening without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent in both directions: 'For one opening use create_job_opening' for the alternative, and 'check progress with get_bulk_request_status' for the follow-up. The when-to-use condition (multiple openings, async) is stated rather than implied.

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