atlas_add_career_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a meaningful constraint that facts must be verified, but it does not disclose duplicate handling, mutability, update/delete behavior, or what the response looks like after a successful add.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. The em-dash efficiently defines the key concept of verification without adding unnecessary length.

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 low-complexity additive tool with fully documented required parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The only notable gaps are return semantics and duplicate-update behavior, which are not essential for a basic invocation.

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%, and the source parameter has useful examples ('resume', 'client confirmed', 'linkedin'). The description reinforces the verification concept but adds little meaning for content or category beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a clear action ('Add'), a specific resource ('a single verified career entry'), and defines what qualifies as verified ('confirmed from a document or directly by the client'). This differentiates it from the bulk ingestion siblings like atlas_ingest_resume and atlas_ingest_linkedin, as well as from other add_* tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for a single fact that has been verified from a document or directly by the client. This implies not for unverified or bulk data, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use list.

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