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

The description adds 'bounded' scope, which signals that only relationship fields are affected, but it does not disclose the destructive behavior implied by destructiveHint=true, such as archiving a prospect via relationship_status or archived_reason. The annotations already carry the safety profile, so this is not a complete failure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though the phrase 'bounded Talent CRM prospect relationship fields' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It lacks information about required fields, update semantics, retry behavior, and how archiving/review/follow-up fields interact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'relationship fields' without explaining what those fields are, which fields can be set together, or the role of idempotency_key/request_id. The schema provides types and enums, but not enough semantic guidance for an 11-parameter update tool.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('prospect'), and narrows the scope to 'relationship fields,' which helps distinguish it from broader prospect operations like create/read/list. It is not as strong as explicitly naming a sibling, but it is specific enough.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as yardstick_prospects_convert_bind or yardstick_people_update. The description implies updating prospect relationship data, but it does not state exclusions or conditions.

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