hire_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutation ('Write operation — finalizes the hiring decision') and two side effects (filling a job opening, recording a close reason), which is useful. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to the application's stage, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive/final write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its write nature, followed by the ID-sourcing guidance. The 'Users say...' line is a minor stylistic flourish but earns its place by anchoring the natural-language trigger, and the rest is terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, the required-parameter retrieval path, and the two optional side effects. It is close to complete for a four-parameter finalize tool, with only permission/reversibility context missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including their sourcing tools. The description reinforces where opening_id and close_reason_id come from but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark a candidate as hired') and adds scope ('finalizes the hiring decision'), which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like advance_application, reject_application, and update_application. An agent can identify the terminal hire action without opening the 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?

Gives a concrete retrieval chain for the required application_id (search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → match to job) and points to list_job_openings and list_close_reasons for the optional IDs. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus advance_application or offer tools, but the 'finalizes the hiring decision' framing strongly implies the end-of-pipeline condition.

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