Save an offer analysis

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description meaningfully extends that by spelling out the upsert behavior and exactly what survives an overwrite (status and interview notes). It does not cover permissions, file location, or what happens to url/tags/score/salary on update.

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?

Two tight sentences with the create-or-update behavior front-loaded and the preservation rule immediately after. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (only the analysis is replaced) is stated early.

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?

With no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the central upsert risk well but leaves a real ambiguity: it says ONLY the analysis is replaced, yet the schema accepts url, tags, score, and salary, so an agent cannot tell whether those are updated or ignored on the update path. That gap matters for 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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema with formats and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond calling the markdown payload 'the analysis', which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Creates or updates an offer file with its analysis') and immediately pins down the upsert semantics. It implicitly separates itself from set_offer_status and add_offer_note by stating that status and interview notes are preserved, though it never names those siblings.

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 tells you what the tool does on both the create and update paths, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as add_offer_note or set_offer_status for the fields it deliberately preserves. Usage is only implied.

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