Star or unstar applicant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful, non-redundant fact — stars are internal to the company (visibility scope) — but says nothing about permissions, whether unstarring destroys prior state, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, the primary action and its parameter mapping front-loaded, with the visibility caveat as trailing context. No filler.

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 annotation gaps on safety, so the description mainly needs to cover the four undocumented parameters. It handles 'starred' well but leaves 'post' (required) and 'page_hint' undefined, so an agent must guess at part of the call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the key ambiguity: it explains that starred=true stars and starred=false unstars, resolving the boolean default of true. However, the required 'post' parameter and the 'page_hint' parameter are left entirely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (star/unstar) and the exact resource (an applicant), so the agent knows precisely what changes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_applicant_folders, reject_applicant, or add_note.

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 boolean toggle, but the description never states when to star versus when another tool (e.g., set_applicant_folders or add_note) is the better choice, nor any preconditions. Minimum viable guidance only.

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