ashby_add_lead

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted. The description clearly states side effects: creates a candidate, adds a lead application, optionally attaches a note. It also discloses the response shape (candidate_id, application_id, note_id). This is good transparency for a creation tool, going beyond annotations by specifying what gets created.

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?

Two concise paragraphs. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the response format is summarized. No wasted words; every sentence contributes. Slightly longer than necessary but well-structured.

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 write operation with 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and response. It explains optional note and the overall effect. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., job must exist) but that is implicit in the schema. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds a bit of context (e.g., note is for sourcing context and visible to hiring team) but doesn't go beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new candidate and add them as a lead on a job.' It also gives a use case (sourcing from LinkedIn) and distinguishes from sibling tools that read or add notes/tags. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to source candidates... directly into Ashby,' giving a clear context. It describes the flow (creates candidate, adds lead, optionally note). It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list makes it obvious that this is the primary creation tool. Minor gap: no mention of when to prefer other add-tools like add_candidate_note.

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