delete_recruiting_opinion

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description reveals that the `opinion` parameter accepts multiple identifier types and that `review` can disambiguate. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, parameter flexibility, and disambiguation purpose without any 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?

For a simple destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the main operational details (identifier formats, disambiguation). It could mention irreversibility, but annotations already indicate destructiveness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that `opinion` accepts raw IDs, OPE-<number>, or number, and that `review` aids disambiguation. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema type 'string'.

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 ('Delete a Recruiting opinion') and the resource type. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'Recruiting opinion' and lists acceptable identifier formats, though includes jargon ('Huly removeCollection').

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 implicitly provides guidance on when to use the `review` parameter for disambiguation, but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like `delete_recruiting_applicant` or `update_recruiting_opinion`.

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