archive_recruiting_vacancy

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying how to identify the vacancy (e.g., by VCN number). However, it does not disclose what archiving entails (e.g., hides from active views) beyond what annotations convey.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by identifier details. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description covers how to specify the vacancy. It could mention what archiving does (e.g., hides from lists), but given low complexity, it is mostly complete.

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?

The single 'vacancy' parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by detailing acceptable input formats (raw _id, VCN-<number>, bare number, exact name), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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 explicitly states the action (archive), the resource (Recruiting vacancy), and the valid identifiers (raw _id, VCN-<number>, bare number, exact name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_recruiting_vacancy or unarchive_recruiting_vacancy.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use archive versus alternatives (delete, unarchive). The description implies usage (when you want to archive a vacancy) but lacks context like prerequisites or consequences.

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