record_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose mutation and the allowed status values plus evidence shape, but it doesn't state overwrite semantics, whether the application must already exist, permissions, or what the call returns.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and fields, with no filler. The status pipe list and evidence format earn their place.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple field-update tool, but with no annotations or output schema it leaves open important invocation details such as whether application_id must reference an existing record, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and what success/failure looks like.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds the status enum, notes/cover_letter as text, and evidence as a screenshot-path object. The only gap is that application_id is not explicitly described as the update target, though 'Update an application' implies it.

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 'Update an application' and enumerates the mutable fields (status, notes, evidence, cover_letter). It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_application and list_applications by using the verb 'update', though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: an existing application is updated with a status and optional fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over start_application or check_applied, and no exclusionary conditions are stated.

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