tool_track_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the create-vs-update branching and that notes accumulate as a per-change log. It does not state permissions, whether updates are reversible, or what happens to omitted fields, leaving meaningful behavioural gaps 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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list where each line adds distinct information. Slightly verbose in the repeated framing of the Args block, but there is no redundant prose to cut.

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 9-parameter dual-mode tool, the description covers both modes, every parameter, and example values; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining omission is behavioural detail (permissions, partial-update semantics) rather than anything blocking correct 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 0%, so the inline Args block has to do all the work and largely does: it enumerates the accepted status values (wishlist/applied/assessment/interview_1/interview_2/hr_stage/offer/rejected/closed), explains the record_id branch, and supplies concrete format examples for time ('2026-09-28 14:00') and free-text fields.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (求职投递看板管理/登记投递记录) and immediately states the dual behaviour: create a new record or advance an existing one via record_id. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like tool_get_funnel_analytics and tool_get_upcoming_schedules, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 gives explicit mode-selection logic: pass record_id to update stage/schedule, omit it to create a new application, and lists concrete update cases (interview_1, scheduling, review notes). It does not name any alternative sibling (e.g. tool_get_upcoming_schedules for reading schedules back), which keeps it short of a 5.

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