save_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and two input methods, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first states the core function, the second provides usage variants. No redundant information.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does not explain which fields are required, optional, or how they map to the search_jobs output. The existing output schema might help, but the description fails to connect.

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 0%, so the description must illuminate parameters. It only mentions the 'source' parameter and the concept of passing fields from search_jobs, but does not describe the other 7 parameters, their roles, or how they relate. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Save a job'), the resource ('job'), and the destination ('shortlist'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search_jobs, track_application) by focusing on saving to a list, not searching or tracking.

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?

The description provides two clear use cases: passing fields from a search_jobs result or manual entry with source='manual'. It implicitly differentiates from other tools by specifying the purpose, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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