add_recruiting_related_issue

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

The description claims idempotency ('Idempotently add') but the annotation idempotentHint is false, creating a contradiction. No other behavioral traits are disclosed beyond this misleading statement. Annotation contradiction flag set.

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?

The description is a single sentence of ~20 words, concise and front-loaded with the action. It effectively communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description fails to accurately convey behavioral traits due to the idempotency contradiction. It does not explain what happens on duplicate addition or return value expectations, leaving gaps.

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% and adequately documents parameters. The tool description adds minimal value (e.g., 'from a tracker issue'), but the schema already explains target kinds. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (add), the resource (Huly Related Issues entry), the source (tracker issue), and the target types (Recruiting vacancy, candidate, or applicant). It distinguishes from siblings like add_recruiting_attachment and remove_recruiting_related_issue by specifying 'Related Issues entry'.

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 implies usage for adding related issues to recruiting targets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_issue_relation, add_recruiting_comment). No when-not or alternative tool mention.

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