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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It prominently highlights that the config replaces the entire object (not a partial merge), a critical non-obvious behavior. It could add details about side effects like credit consumption, but the schema covers field-level semantics adequately.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and a critical warning. No redundant phrasing; each sentence delivers essential information.

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?

The description addresses the key complexity (config replacement) and provides a clear workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the full range of updatable top-level fields (e.g., status, autoMode) or the return value. Given no output schema, some return-type guidance would help, but the schema and get_job_hunt reference mitigate this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial parameter usage guidance: pass the entire config object and retrieve the current config first. This meaningfully supplements the schema by clarifying replace semantics.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'job hunt settings and search filters', making it distinct from sibling tools like get_job_hunt and create_job_hunt. It accurately conveys the tool's function without 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?

The description provides clear usage context ('Use this to change what jobs are matched') and explicitly recommends calling get_job_hunt first to retrieve the current config, which is a strong guideline for correct usage. It doesn't enumerate exclusions, but the reference to get_job_hunt covers the read-only alternative.

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