hires_update_candidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions updating fields and CV but does not disclose side effects, partial vs full update behavior, permissions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the use case. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary information.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits update semantics, return values, and potential error conditions. The sync context is helpful but incomplete.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond grouping them into 'fields, profile answers, and optional CV.' The schema already explains each parameter's meaning and constraints.

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 updates candidate fields, profile answers, and optional CV, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from read, create, and delete tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_application.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is 'Used for bi-directional sync from ATS, CRM, sourcing, or enrichment tools,' providing a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the integration context is clear enough.

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