mark_job_as_applied

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important consequences: a durable ledger entry, cache dismissal, and permanent exclusion from future job scout runs. That is genuine side-effect disclosure beyond the schema. It omits idempotency behavior (what happens if called twice) and any permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded with the durability consequence immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 input schema fully documents parameters. The description supplies purpose and the key persistence/exclusion semantics, leaving only minor gaps (idempotency, auth expectations) for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 four parameters (including the notes example and job_id format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as what job_id formats are accepted or how company/job_title are used in the record, 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 (record a job as applied) plus the mechanism (persistent ledger) and side effect (dismiss from cache). The word 'manually' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling auto_apply_job, so an agent can choose between them from the description alone.

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 'manually' framing implies this is the fallback when an application happened outside the agent (e.g., company portal), which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of auto_apply_job or confirm_auto_apply, and offers no exclusions or preconditions, leaving the alternative choice to inference.

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