apply_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'atomically' which hints at transactional behavior, but it does not state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., state changes). The agent is left to guess about safety and failure modes.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, but at the cost of being under-specified. It lacks critical information that would make it concise yet informative. Ideally, conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or behavior. The output schema exists but is not leveraged. This is far from sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it does not mention any parameter. Required params 'candidate_id' and 'approved' are not described, nor are optional ones like 'ops', 'bundle_id', etc. The description adds zero value 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?

The description 'Apply an approved Candidate bundle atomically' provides a verb and resource, but 'apply' is vague and doesn't specify the outcome (e.g., create, update, delete). Among siblings, 'create_update_candidate' exists, but no differentiation is given. The term 'atomically' adds some context but not enough to fully distinguish.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_update_candidate'. The description implies a prerequisite state ('approved') but does not explain when the tool should be invoked or what conditions must hold.

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