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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a destructive, likely irreversible action, that confirm and dry_run parameters exist for safety, or any perform_as implications. The description is silent on side effects, making it dangerously opaque for a delete 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?

The description is a single sentence and contains no redundancy. However, it is under-informative and the phrase 'for recruiting operations' adds no value. It is concise in words but lacks meaningful content, earning a middle score.

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 destructive tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the deletion scope, the effect of confirm/dry_run, the purpose of body/reason, or any expected consequences. The schema documents parameters but not the operational context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, no deduction is warranted.

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 specifies the Lever DELETE /requisitions/:id endpoint, clearly indicating a deletion operation on requisitions. It distinguishes from siblings like create_requisition or update_requisition by referencing the HTTP DELETE method and resource. However, 'for recruiting operations' is vague and does not explicitly state that a requisition is deleted, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, permissions, safety checks, or situations where other tools (e.g., archive or update) would be more appropriate. It merely instructs to use the endpoint for 'recruiting operations,' which is too generic to guide selection.

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