hires_update_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating stage, disqualification, and CV, but does not disclose side effects such as whether disqualification triggers notifications, whether CV replacement is irreversible, or any authorization requirements. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core functionality with examples, and the second sentence gives a clear pointer to alternatives. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params, 1 nested object), the description is functional but minimal. It effectively differentiates from siblings but does not cover the full update surface (e.g., include parameter is not mentioned) or explain return values. The schema fills some gaps, but for a mutation tool without annotations, the description is not fully contextual.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names a few parameters (stage, disqualification flag, CV) but does not add detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. It provides a helpful high-level mapping but no extra semantic depth, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 tool's function: updating application fields like stage, disqualification flag, and CV. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to hires_move_application and hires_advance_application for explicit stage transitions, making its purpose and scope 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use this for general updates, but prefer specialized siblings for stage transitions. This directly addresses when to use this tool vs alternatives, which is exactly what this dimension requires.

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