prepare_application

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool never sends, requires real attachments (no placeholders), enforces one application per URL, and returns a digest. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover potential side effects or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most critical fact ('never send'). Each sentence adds meaningful context with no redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description gives key constraints and return behavior but omits parameter semantics and the role of expected_digest. It covers major behavioral points but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'attachments' and 'digest' but does not clarify the purpose of expected_digest, recipient, subject, body, or job_url. The description is too high-level to guide an agent on how to fill the 6-parameter schema correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Save') with a clear resource ('completed local draft') and explicitly differentiates from sending by saying 'never send'. This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool send_application, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies it is a preparation step rather than a sending step, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when to choose this over send_application. It provides constraints like 'One application per exact job URL' but lacks explicit selection guidance.

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