Dismiss Job

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the mechanism (read title/company, click dismiss on the card, reload to confirm), the irreversibility ('LinkedIn offers no undo after a reload'), and the ambiguous-error case. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then mechanism, then irreversibility, then error semantics — a sensible ordering with no filler. The middle sentence describing the click sequence is slightly verbose but carries real behavioral value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers preconditions, irreversibility, and failure modes for a one-parameter destructive tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented with format examples there, so the description does not need to explain it. The description adds no meaning about the parameter itself, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource (dismiss a job) plus the exact effect ('so later searches never show it'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like search_jobs, get_saved_jobs, and get_job_details. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool to 'jobs already applied to or rejected', which is real when-to-use guidance, and adds an error condition for jobs not found on the first page. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.

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