Update Auto Apply Settings

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining that "auto" sends applications in the user's name with no confirmation and that a sent application cannot be undone, while settings themselves are reversible. It also discloses plan gating (Hired Yesterday required to turn Auto Apply on, otherwise the response reports the failure and nothing changes) and that the call returns the settings after the change.

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 purpose and the destructive "auto" semantics, and every sentence carries information an agent needs. It is dense and long for a four-optional-parameter setter, and the ordering jumps between semantics, gating, and next steps, so structure could be tighter.

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?

Covers the mutation's irreversibility, plan prerequisite, return behavior, and sibling routing; since an output schema exists, return-value detail need not be spelled out. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, so the per-parameter meanings are already documented; the description adds real value by tying default_apply_mode to the behavior of getmattered_apply when its mode is omitted, which the schema does not say. It does not add anything further about match_level thresholds or the plan cap on daily_limit beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names the exact resource (Auto Apply settings) and enumerates the four settings it changes (enabled, default_apply_mode, daily_limit, match_level), so an agent knows precisely what is mutated. It also explicitly contrasts itself with getmattered_apply for single-job applications.

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 both a positive gate ("Call it only when the user asks to change these settings, never on your own") and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ("Do not use it to apply to one job; use getmattered_apply"). It also names the natural follow-up tool, getmattered_get_applications.

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