Record candidate intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not validate or adopt the candidate as project knowledge, but it does not describe side effects, persistence behavior, return shape, or error conditions. This is partial transparency, not full.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the non-validation clarification is placed immediately after, making the core intent easy to 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 9-parameter intake tool with no parameter descriptions and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level purpose but leaves most parameters and workflow nuances unexplained. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics.

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, but it only restates the source_type enum and gives general candidate categories. It adds no meaningful guidance for required fields like title, summary, relevance_reason, or for optional fields like confidence, source_url, and status.

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 uses a specific verb ('record') with a clear resource: newly discovered external candidates such as papers, repositories, web items, and advisor leads. It also distinguishes recording from validation/adoption, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for newly discovered candidates that may be relevant, not for validating or adopting knowledge. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_candidate_status or record_research_activity, but the intake-oriented framing is clear enough.

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