save_career_strategyPersist a reviewed job application strategy as an immutable snapshot for auditable tracking and later verification.
Save an explicitly reviewed strategy and an immutable snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful information: the strategy should be explicitly reviewed and the snapshot is immutable. However, it does not disclose whether existing strategies are overwritten, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are needed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is so brief that some necessary detail is missing.
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 one nested object parameter, no annotations, and similar sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected strategy structure, the meaning of 'immutable snapshot' in practice, or the circumstances under which saving is appropriate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'strategy' parameter. It only adds the vague qualifier 'explicitly reviewed' and does not explain what fields or shape the strategy object should have, making it hard for an agent to construct valid input.
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 names a specific verb ('save') and resource ('career strategy' and 'immutable snapshot'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool save_application_snapshot, which is similar in action.
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 phrase 'explicitly reviewed' hints that the strategy must be reviewed before saving, but there is no direct statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_career_strategy or save_application_snapshot. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.