Update Job Application Details

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., application must exist), potential side effects, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

A single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description lacks details on whether updates are partial or atomic, how identifiers are used, and what return value to expect. For a 6-parameter mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists fields that can be updated, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New company name'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing job application,' and lists specific fields (company, job title, application date, link). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_application_status, which focuses on status updates.

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?

No explicit when or when-not guidance is provided. The description implies use for updating the listed fields, but does not mention alternatives like update_application_status for status changes. Some direction would help an agent choose correctly.

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