Record what an employer said

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the non-obvious side effect that the application stops appearing in follow-ups. However, it does not clarify whether the action updates an existing record, is reversible, what happens on repeated calls, or what the return value indicates.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and then states the important behavioral consequence, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse input schema, the description leaves essential gaps. It does not explain what url should contain, when exactly to invoke the tool relative to follow-up records, or what the response/result of the call will be. The core idea is clear, but the agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly from this definition alone.

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. It does explain the meaning of the response parameter by enumerating the four categories. However, it gives no semantics for the required url parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to know what URL to provide.

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: recording an employer's response (replied, rejected, interview, offer) and ties it to a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool record-follow-up by focusing on the employer's response and by describing a concrete consequence for follow-up visibility.

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 implies when to use it: after an employer has replied, rejected, invited, or offered. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives like record-follow-up, or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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