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

The description discloses key behavioral semantics: partial updates ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and response behavior ('the result is returned'). It also adds practical guidance about match-quality impact. Annotations already communicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description usefully supplements rather than repeats them.

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 bit long but information-dense, front-loading the core action and update semantics before providing value lists. Each section earns its place, and the formatting with colons and comma-separated examples is easy to scan.

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 an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description provides the essential operational context: when to call it, partial-update behavior, return behavior, and recommended field values. The remaining gaps are mostly self-explanatory field names rather than critical missing instructions.

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 only about 9%, so the description carries most of the parameter-knowledge burden for the non-obvious enums. It adds concrete value by listing suggested values for seniority, meeting_types, and industries, but several parameters such as geo, about, headline, offering, and remote_ok are still left without explicit explanation beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revise') and resource ('the brief') and frames it around the human's changing goals, which is distinct from sibling tools like get_brief or check_matches. The title reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: whenever the human's goals change, and emphasizes that keeping 'seeking' current is the top priority. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes the intended use unambiguous.

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