bulk_apply

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a 10–25s inter-application delay, per-company caps, idempotency behavior (skips already applied), and an auth precondition (validates login sessions). It does not say what happens to a partially-completed run or whether submitted applications are reversible, which keeps it out of the top band for a real-world mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the constraints, then the dry_run escape hatch. Every clause carries information; no padding or restatement of the title.

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 bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the gaps are failure and result semantics: it does not describe what the caller receives, how partial failures mid-run are reported, or how long a capped run takes. Safety and sequencing are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal semantic value, mainly reinforcing dry_run as a preview switch and explaining why per-company caps exist; company_window_days and the defaults are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Apply to multiple jobs') and characterizes the scope as sequential bulk submission with rate-limiting, which distinguishes it from the single-job siblings. It never names apply_job or explains the bulk-vs-single boundary, so an agent has to infer the split from the plural 'jobs' parameter rather than from the description.

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 concrete operating context: use dry_run=true to preview, sessions must be validated before real submissions begin, and already-applied jobs are skipped. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use apply_job for a single job' or 'do not run while another bulk run is active').

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