update_applicant_external

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states WRITE operation and PUT method, but does not fully clarify whether partial updates are allowed or if omitted fields are reset. The 'and/or' suggests partial update, but not explicitly stated. Missing details on permissions, idempotency, or side effects.

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?

Single paragraph with clear, front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: operation type, configurable fields, parameter sources, and a critical limitation. No redundancy.

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 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, description covers prerequisites, value sources, and a key limitation. Minor gap: no hint about return value or success indicator, but overall complete for agent decision-making.

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 100%, baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying sources: external_id from get_applicant, account_source from list_account_sources, and files from upload_resume. This contextualizes parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Update an EXISTING resume (external) of an applicant (WRITE operation: PUT)', clearly specifying the verb (update), resource (existing resume), and method (PUT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_applicant which would add a new resume at creation.

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?

Provides clear guidance: external_id comes from get_applicant, account_source from list_account_sources, and a critical note that there is no API to add a resume later, so attach at creation. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs create_applicant.

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