update_application_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Update the status' implying modification, but does not disclose whether it overwrites the previous status, if the application must exist, what happens if not found, or if there are any side effects or permissions required.

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 concise at one sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is minimal and could benefit from additional context without being verbose. Still, it is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete in stating the action but lacks details about return values, error handling, or behavior when company not found. For a straightforward mutation, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema; it merely restates 'status'. However, schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description provides no additional semantic context for parameters like 'notes', 'follow_up_date', or 'outcome'.

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 phrase 'Update the status of an existing job application' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing job application') clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log_job_application' which likely creates new applications.

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 implies usage for changing the status of an existing application, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_job_application' or 'get_job_applications'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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