Add team note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new and important context beyond that: the note is confidential and never visible to the candidate, which materially affects content the agent writes. It stops short of covering permission requirements or whether notes can later be edited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key constraint in parentheses and no wasted words. The visibility caveat arrives before the agent starts composing note text, which is the right order.

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?

No output schema and no annotations cover the parameters, so the description is the only explanatory layer for a 4-parameter write tool. Without any explanation of what 'post' is or why 'page_hint' exists, an agent cannot reliably populate the arguments.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'Applicant' and 'note' map loosely to applicant_id and text, but 'post' and 'page_hint' are never mentioned and remain completely opaque in both schema and description.

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 ('Add a confidential team note to an applicant'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not name a sibling or clarify its relationship to delete_note/list_applicants, so an agent must infer the workflow boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite delete_note being a sibling. The confidentiality clause implies an internal-notes workflow but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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