add_recruiting_candidate_skill

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

Annotations are neutral (no hints), but the description adds value by disclosing side effects: missing skill titles are created, and category/color only apply to new skill tags. It also details input flexibility, which aids agent understanding.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The action is front-loaded, followed by necessary details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input formats, side effects, and conditional parameters. It could mention error cases, but that's beyond typical scope.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that candidate accepts multiple formats (person _id, email, or exact name), skill accepts title or tag ID with auto-creation, and category/color are conditional. Weight is not mentioned, but its schema is clear.

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 starts with 'Attach a skill to a candidate,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'remove_recruiting_candidate_skill' and other add tools by focusing on recruiting candidate skills.

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 context on input formats (candidate accepts person _id, email, or exact name; skill accepts title or tag ID) and explains when category/color apply (only to newly created skill tags). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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