upsert_role

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

Annotations already declare write-non-destructive-closed-world, so the description is freed to add genuinely new traits: new roles require title/company/start (not captured by the schema, whose only required field is id), roles are kept in newest-first date order, and it returns the saved role. The 'Keep the person's real title' guidance is a useful quality constraint. It doesn't explain what happens to omitted fields on update, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then layers usage, required fields, ordering, and return in a compact paragraph. Every sentence carries information; the 'Keep the person's real title' sentence is slightly tangential but still actionable.

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 an 8-parameter upsert with no output schema, the description covers the essential extras: conditional required fields, ordering behavior, the bullet cross-reference, and the return shape. Only the partial-update semantics (what happens to unsupplied fields) are left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it names title, company, and start as conditionally required for a new role even though the schema declares only id as required, and it reinforces the id-as-foreign-key relationship for bullets.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a job role, or change some fields of an existing one by its id') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like upsert_education, upsert_publication, and remove_role. The upsert semantics and the id-based update path are both explicit.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('while interviewing the person about their work history') and routes the related achievement data to the add_bullet sibling with an explicit pointer ('pointing to this id'). It lacks an explicit when-not (e.g., use remove_role to delete), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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