create_job_opening

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 behavior: it flags the operation as a write, states that openings default to open, and explains the non-obvious side effect that status='closed' closes the opening immediately, requiring close_reason_id. It omits permissions/error/rate-limit behavior, so not 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?

Four short segments, front-loaded with the operation and the write classification, then user-phrasing, then a lookup recipe, then default/edge-case behavior. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers what it creates, the default and conditional status behavior, and how to resolve the required job_id. Missing only permission requirements and failure modes, which are minor given the output schema handles return values.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the default status value, the conditional dependency between status='closed' and close_reason_id, and how to obtain job_id. It does not clarify the custom_fields or opening_id semantics further.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Add a new headcount to a job') and even maps user phrasing ('add another opening to the Backend role') onto it, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close neighbors like bulk_create_job_openings or create_job, so it falls 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?

It gives concrete activation context (the natural-language request it answers) and a prerequisite workflow: 'To find job_id: list_jobs → match by name.' That is more than implied usage, but it names no exclusions or explicit alternative tools for edge cases (e.g., bulk creation).

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