apply_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it fills standard fields, uploads a resume, handles platform submission, and prompts for login when the session is missing. It omits important side-effect context for an irreversible external action such as submission failure handling, rate limits, or the fact that this consumes/profile-config state referenced by check_profile_config.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by behavioral and edge-case detail. No filler, though the login sentence is slightly redundant with the auto_login schema description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and the login edge case, which is the right instinct. It stops short of describing failure outcomes or what the agent should expect after submission, leaving a gap an agent acting autonomously would want filled.

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% with four well-documented parameters (including the auto_login default and the platform enum), so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('a single job') plus the mechanism ('via browser automation'). The scoping word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling bulk_apply, though it never names that alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'single job' scoping rather than stated: an agent must infer this is the one-at-a-time counterpart to bulk_apply. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance beyond the login handling mentioned inline.

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