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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the read-then-rewrite mechanics (unchanged name/mail/phone are sent back because the endpoint otherwise requires first and last name), states that social_links and location REPLACE rather than merge and that an empty social_links object clears them, and clarifies that no notification is sent. The destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations are confirmed and enriched with concrete consequences.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: operation marker first, then update semantics, then the destructive replacement caveat, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, nested-object, 7-parameter mutation, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (partial update, replacement semantics, no notification). It omits what the call returns and what happens for an unknown candidate_id, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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?

With 71% schema coverage, the schema already documents most fields; the description still adds real meaning by framing the whole call as a partial update (only what you pass changes) and by spelling out the destructive replacement semantics for the two nested object parameters. It does not add detail on first_name/last_name beyond the schema, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE:' marker and names the exact resource and mutable field set ('name, e-mail, phone, social links or location'), which cleanly separates it from the read siblings (get_candidate, list_candidates) and from create_candidate. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the field enumeration and the 'Overwrites data; no message is sent' warning, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the closest alternative, taleez_set_candidate_properties, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool since both mutate a candidate.

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