update_interview_guide

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the full guide content in markdown is replaced, and the workflow constraint ('generate first') is disclosed. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects, which would further enrich transparency.

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 concise with a clear one-sentence purpose, a workflow note, and a compact args list. All sentences earn their place without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters but omits error handling or prerequisites beyond the generation workflow, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 compensates by documenting each parameter in the Args section. It clarifies study_id and section_id as identifiers and notes guide_content is 'the full guide content in markdown format', adding meaning beyond 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 states 'Replace the interview guide content for a specific section' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_guide (creation) and get_interview_guides (reading) by specifying the update/replace operation.

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 explicitly instructs users to FIRST generate a guide using generate_guide and then edit it with this tool, and warns against writing guides from scratch. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative tool.

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