update_active_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the last-review timestamp is stamped automatically, computed columns are sheet formulas and are left untouched, and ACTIVE/CLOSED status is not changed here. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then exclusions. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is wasted.

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 a rich input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the mutation scope, automatic side effects, untouched computed columns, and the alternative tool for status changes. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description lists the updatable fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (update), resource (working columns of an open position in 'Active Positions'), and enumerates the affected fields. It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from close_plan for status changes, so the agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 makes clear this is for updating an open position and explicitly says to use close_plan for ACTIVE/CLOSED status changes. It does not explain when to use update_active_position versus review_positions or get_position, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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