create_recruiting_opinion

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions side effects (incrementing OPE sequence), attachment to a collection, and format conversion (markdown to Huly markup). This provides useful transparency, though permission requirements are not mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key implementation details.

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 description explains the creation process including side effects, it lacks information about error conditions (e.g., if review does not exist), behavior on duplicate opinions, or constraints on the 'value' parameter. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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 67% but parameter descriptions are generic ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description does not add meaning to the parameters; 'review' is not described at all, leaving ambiguity about its format (ID or name). The description fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 it creates a recruiting opinion on a review, and specifies technical details like incrementing the OPE sequence and storing markdown as Huly markup. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_recruiting_review and update_recruiting_opinion.

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 the tool is for adding an opinion to an existing review, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_recruiting_opinion. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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