create_applicant

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this creates a record and that repeated calls can duplicate it. The description usefully adds a deduplication workflow step. However, it does not say what happens if a matching email already exists, which fields identify a candidate for the deduplication check, or what the failed call returns.

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 definition uses exactly two sentences and states the action first, followed by the precondition. It has no filler or restated field lists.

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 create tool with ten parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the deduplication prerequisite but omits other essentials. It does not say which fields are required (only account_id is required in the schema) or what a successful call returns, such as the new applicant id.

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%, so all ten parameters, including email, phone, and account_id, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline score of 3 is correct. It could have clarified which fields count as identity for the duplicate check.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Создать кандидата в базе'), making the write intent unambiguous and separating it from read tools like get_applicant. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from sibling write operations such as update_applicant or add_applicant_to_vacancy.

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?

It states an explicit precondition ('Перед созданием проверьте через search_applicants, что его ещё нет') and names the exact tool to run first. It does not explain the reverse case: what to do when the candidate already exists. It also does not distinguish this tool from update_applicant.

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