update_salary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so admirably by revealing the non-obvious unit behavior (lakhs vs thousands) and pointing to get_currencies for valid codes. It also implies the update modifies existing salary data, which is intuitive. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements, which would be valuable but are not critical for this simple update tool.

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 efficiently structured: a brief purpose statement, an important unit-convention warning with examples, and a pointer to get_currencies. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical behavior (units) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and no annotations.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a strong job covering the essential context: unit conversions, currency lookup, and the scope ('your salary'). However, it omits return-value behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated salary) and whether partial updates (only some fields) are supported. These gaps are minor since the schema implies all fields are optional, but they prevent a perfect score.

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%, providing descriptions for all six parameters, including the unit convention. The tool description adds value by giving concrete examples (e.g., '20 for 20 lakhs' and '400 for $400K') and reinforcing that all numeric fields use the same convention. It also clarifies the currency parameter by referencing get_currencies, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Currency code' description.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update your salary/compensation details.' It specifies the resource (salary/compensation) and the action (update), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_salary (read) and update_profile (general profile update). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_profile, the resource is distinct enough for an agent to select correctly.

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 provides explicit usage context by explaining the critical unit convention (lakhs for INR, thousands for other currencies) and instructs the agent to 'Use get_currencies to look up currency codes.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and references an alternative tool for a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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