update_job_hunt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the critical behavioral trait that 'config replaces the existing config (not a partial merge)', which is essential for correct usage. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that might be relevant 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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining the replacement behavior, and providing procedural guidance. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information ('IMPORTANT' about replacement behavior) is appropriately emphasized.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the critical replacement behavior and procedural requirements. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the absence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, mainly emphasizing the replacement behavior of the config parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('update job hunt settings and search filters') and resources ('job hunt'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning get_job_hunt as a prerequisite. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain what the tool actually does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('to change what jobs are matched') and includes crucial procedural instructions: 'Use get_job_hunt first to see current config, then include all fields you want to keep.' It also warns about the replacement behavior versus partial merge, which is essential usage guidance.

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