remove_recruiting_candidate_skill

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

The description reinforces the idempotent behavior already indicated by annotations, adding context ('Idempotent when the skill is absent'). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional clarity on the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 removal tool, the description covers purpose, identification method, and idempotency. Combined with annotations and schema, it provides sufficient context. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values, so no further description needed.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the 'skill' parameter accepts either a skill title or a tag ID. The schema only describes it as 'a string that will be trimmed', so this extra context is valuable.

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 ('Detach a Recruiting skill from a candidate') and the method of identification ('by skill title or tag ID'). It also mentions idempotency, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_recruiting_candidate_skill or list_recruiting_candidate_skills.

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 when to use (to remove a skill from a candidate) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide prerequisites. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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