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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' without mentioning side effects, whether it partially updates or replaces existing data, return values, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is immediately 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and parameter names, but lacks behavioral information like return values or side effects. The schema fills parameter details, but no annotation/description covers the effects of the update. It's minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description 'status or notes' merely mirrors property descriptions. Since the schema already explains params clearly, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a job application status or notes'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_application (read) and apply_to_job (create) by specifying the update action on the same resource.

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 usage (when you need to update application status or notes) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of using get_application for viewing or other related tools.

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