Save Job Matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete consequences: no message reaches an employer and nothing is spent, and the action is reversible via getmattered_unsave_matches. It does not cover failure modes (invalid or already-saved IDs beyond the idempotent hint) or partial-batch behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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-loads the action and purpose, then batches limits, safety, undo, and next step in short sentences. Slightly redundant between 'Saving does not apply' and 'Do not use it to apply', which costs a point but not readability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter, non-destructive save operation, the description covers source of IDs, batch limits, side effects, reversibility, and the logical next call — everything an agent needs to invoke it 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% and the single parameter already documents the 1–25 range, the source tool, and an example array. The description's 'Pass 1 to 25 job_match_ids from getmattered_get_matches' largely restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies despite the count constraint being repeated for emphasis.

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 and resource ('Save job matches to the user's saved list') plus the intent behind it ('so they can come back to them'). It also names the source tool for the IDs, so an agent can distinguish it from getmattered_apply, getmattered_skip_matches, and getmattered_unsave_matches without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use (save matches for later), explicit when-not ('Do not use it to apply; use getmattered_apply'), a named alternative, a follow-up call ('getmattered_get_matches with saved_only'), and the undo path. Nothing about tool selection 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.