Update candidate details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'contact or profile fields', which the schema already implies, and omits partial-vs-replace semantics, auth requirements, and what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the other dimensions lack.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, a nested 'fields' object, and a required-but-undocumented key parameter, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify the partial-update behavior of 'fields' and the role of job_application_id.

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 50%: the 'fields' object is documented in the schema but 'job_application_id' is not. The description adds nothing to either parameter — it never explains that job_application_id identifies which candidate is updated or how the fields map merges into the profile.

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 ('Update') and resource ('contact or profile fields of a candidate'), making the operation identifiable. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_candidate or delete_candidate, but no sibling overlaps the update operation, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for modifying an existing candidate versus create_candidate or move_candidate.

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