Prepare Applications Again

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the run consumes the user's AI credits, existing saved documents are replaced ('The new documents replace the ones saved on each application'), and nothing is sent to the employer. These complement the destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent hints with concrete consequences an agent must weigh before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and trigger, then constraints, side effects, the exclusion, and the next step — each sentence contributes distinct routing or safety information with no filler.

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?

A destructive, credit-consuming batch mutation is fully covered on cost, scope, and alternatives, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens on partial failure across the 25 ids or whether the call is long-running.

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 100% and the steps enum is self-documenting, so baseline is 3. The description still adds the 1-25 bound on application_ids, the id source, and the default behavior when steps is omitted, though that last point largely repeats the schema text.

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?

Specific verb phrase ('Build the tailored documents and form answers of applications again') plus explicit trigger ('after the user changed their resume or settings'). It also names the sibling it is not (getmattered_refine_application_documents), so an agent can separate it from refinement without reading either schema.

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?

Gives the when (after resume/settings changes), the when-not with a named alternative ('Do not use it to change one document from instructions; use getmattered_refine_application_documents'), an input constraint (1 to 25 ids from getmattered_get_applications), and a follow-up step. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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