add_education

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation appends one item after existing entries, rather than replacing or clearing them. It does not mention error behavior or preconditions like draft existence, but the key state-changing behavior is communicated clearly.

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 filler. It communicates the core action and the append behavior in a compact and immediately usable form.

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 straightforward single-item append operation with a documented schema and an output schema, the description plus input schema is sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention that the target draft must already exist, but the required draft_id parameter and the verb 'add' imply that sufficiently.

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 50%, and the description adds no per-parameter detail beyond reinforcing that 'studies' refers to a single qualification/training period. The schema itself documents fields such as title, start_date, and organisation, so the description contributes only marginal semantic value over the schema.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('one qualification or training period'), which unambiguously identifies the education domain and distinguishes it from sibling add_* tools like add_work_experience or add_language_skill. The phrase 'after those already added' adds useful ordering context without obscuring the core purpose.

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 the agent this tool is for appending a single education entry to an existing draft, with the ordering clue 'after those already added.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource type is specific enough to guide tool selection among the siblings.

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