propose_my_career_changeAdds a structured, human-readable diff to the owner's review inbox. Experience upserts may include a public HTTPS company_logo_url; person.work imports its own protected copy only after owner approval. Use this for normal maintenance after the initial import; the agent cannot apply or publish it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instruction | Yes | ||
| diff_summary | No | ||
| source_label | No | ||
| proposed_patch | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important side effects: it creates a review item, imports protected copies only after owner approval, and cannot directly apply or publish. It does not describe every possible effect, but the key behavioral boundaries are clear.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no redundant or filler content.
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 complex nested schema and no output schema, the description provides good high-level context but not enough to construct a valid patch or instruction without closely inspecting the schema. Sibling tool names help, but the description does not explain how this tool fits with them in detail.
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?
The description hints at 'structured diff' and logo handling but leaves the instruction and proposed_patch parameters largely to the schema. Some nested fields have descriptions, but the overall parameter semantics are not fully explained in the tool description.
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?
Clearly states the tool adds a structured, human-readable diff to the owner's review inbox, and explicitly contrasts with applying or publishing changes. This makes the core purpose and non-purpose unambiguous.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: use for normal maintenance after the initial import, not for applying or publishing. However, it does not name sibling tools to directly guide selection among get_my_career_record, get_profile, or sync_my_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.