ashby_add_candidate_note

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the note will be visible to the hiring team and the response includes note_id and a confirmation message. This gives the agent useful expectations without contradicting the 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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then states purpose and usage, then closes with the response format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter write tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, visibility of the note, and the response shape. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., candidate existence) or error conditions, but given the schema and annotations, the description is near-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the note as an 'evaluation note' meant for assessments/recommendations, which clarifies the intended use of the 'note' parameter beyond its schema description. It does not duplicate parameter details.

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 (Add an evaluation note to a candidate) and the resource (candidate), and it explains the note's purpose (record assessment/recommendations). It distinguishes itself from sibling ashby_add_candidate_tag by specifying it is an evaluation note, not a tag.

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 provides a clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to record your assessment or recommendations.' It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., ashby_add_candidate_tag) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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