Read or Update the Application Profile

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description explains the mechanism behind that (only passed fields change, null clears one) and adds context annotations cannot carry: the policy to save only user-given answers and never guesses, and the explicit side-effect statement that nothing is sent to any employer and nothing is spent. It also flags the EEO fields as optional and sensitive with a decline path.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then read mode, write mode, safety policy, exclusions, and next steps in a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat long, but for a tool covering 33 fields with read/write dual behavior and sensitive data, nearly every sentence carries load.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and the description still covers the read-mode payload conceptually ('open questions: required fields that are empty, and details recent applications had to guess'). With zero required parameters, the patch-style semantics, the clearing behavior, and the provenance policy are all disclosed, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and each field description already states its own meaning and sensitivity. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that a null value clears a field (only implied by the anyOf null schema), that personal_narrative feeds interview preparation, and how the declared fields group into employer-form answers. It does not add per-field syntax beyond that.

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 and resource ('read or update the user's application profile'), names the concrete content domain (contact details, work authorization, declarations, EEO answers), and explicitly distinguishes itself from aiapplyd_update_job_preferences. An agent can identify and separate this tool from its ~20 siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation modes ('call it with no fields to read', 'pass fields to save them'), an exclusion with a named alternative (job preferences → aiapplyd_update_job_preferences), and a next-step route (aiapplyd_get_matches / aiapplyd_apply). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure needed for a 33-parameter tool.

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