auto_apply_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the critical safety property — 'without submitting' and 'evaluate safety guardrails' — which counters the write-like name, and it says the application is 'staged' rather than committed. However it never says what happens when a guardrail fails, whether the staged preview expires, or what authorization is required.

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 non-submission guarantee is front-loaded in the first clause, which is exactly what an agent needs before anything else. The second sentence is slightly padded by the internal dispatcher name but remains short and scannable.

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 not be explained. For a two-parameter preview tool with no annotations, the description covers intent, safety posture, and the required follow-up call; only failure-mode and auth behavior are unstated.

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 both `job_id` and the optional `cv_path` fallback are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or precedence, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Inspect job application form and generate preview without submitting', which is far more precise than the tool name suggests. It also distinguishes itself from the confirmation sibling by framing itself as 'Step 1'. The 'Uses HybridApplicationDispatcher' sentence is an internal implementation detail that adds little for an agent.

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 positions the tool as the first step and names `confirm_auto_apply` as the follow-up path, which gives the agent a clear routing decision. It stops short of stating preconditions (e.g., must the job be bookmarked or match-verified first) or any when-not-to-use case.

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