hs_withdraw_application

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks critical behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the action is destructive, reversible, or has side effects. For a mutation tool like withdrawal, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it omits prerequisites, status requirements for the application, and potential results. It is sufficient for simple use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, including a description for 'application_id' that references its origin from hs_get_applications. The main description adds no additional parameter insights, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Withdraw' and the resource 'submitted Handshake job application'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its siblings, such as hs_apply (submission) and hs_get_applications (listing), making the tool's purpose 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 implies usage when one needs to withdraw an application, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal guidance.

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