confirm_auto_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that submission runs through HybridApplicationDispatcher and writes an immutable audit record in the ApplicationLedger, plus the ordering prerequisite. It does not state that submission is effectively irreversible, nor permission/auth or rate-limit considerations, which matter for a final write operation.

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?

Three compact sentences with the action and prerequisite front-loaded; every sentence adds signal. The middle sentence about the dispatcher/ledger slightly elongates without changing the decision, keeping it just below a 5.

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, and the prerequisite is covered. However, for an irreversible write tool with no annotations, the description omits irreversibility, failure/duplicate behavior, and permission needs, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 the meanings of force (bypass guardrails) and cv_path (override previewed CV) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an implicit reference to job_id via the prerequisite, 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?

Specific verb+resource: it confirms and executes job application submission, and names the internal machinery (HybridApplicationDispatcher, ApplicationLedger). The 'Step 2' framing distinguishes it from the sibling auto_apply_job as the follow-up step in a pipeline. It stops short of a crisp one-line statement of what it does, but an agent can identify the operation.

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 prerequisite: auto_apply_job must have been called first for this job_id, which is exactly the routing condition the agent needs. It does not say when NOT to use it or mention the alternative (mark_job_as_applied) for already-applied jobs, so it falls short of a full 5.

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