delete_recruiting_review

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description mainly confirms the delete action. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, except mentioning internal method 'with Huly removeCollection' which is unclear. No mention of side effects, permissions, or what happens on success or failure.

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 two sentences: first for action, second for identifier handling. No unnecessary words or repetition. Concise and well-structured, easy to parse.

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 has 3 parameters (1 required), is destructive, and has an output schema, the description adequately covers identifier ambiguity and disambiguation. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., user must have permission) or expected return outcome. The output schema may cover return values, but missing context on error handling.

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 low (33% only candidate described). The description adds value by specifying that 'review' can accept various identifier formats (raw _id, RVE-<number>, number, or exact title) and that 'candidate' and 'application' serve disambiguation. However, it does not specify the format or allowed values for candidate and application parameters.

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?

Description starts with 'Delete a Recruiting review', clearly stating the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying 'review' and mentioning disambiguation with candidate/application. No ambiguity.

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?

Description provides basic usage context by explaining how to identify the review (raw _id, RVE-<number>, number, or exact title) and that candidate/application can disambiguate. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus other delete tools (e.g., delete_recruiting_applicant) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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