Update Job Preferences

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the operation REPLACES saved lists, re-runs discovery immediately, and requires a connected account. These details align with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true and help the agent anticipate side effects.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the critical replacement warning, the invocation condition, and the prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side effects, when to call it, and what is required before calling it. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose description repeats the 'pass the complete list, not just an addition' warning, which reinforces the schema, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 a specific action ('Set the roles and locations'), names the resource (job preferences), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_jobs or auto_apply by emphasizing it changes saved preferences and re-runs discovery. The 'REPLACES' warning makes the scope unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit invocation condition: 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks to change what they are looking for.' This also implies when not to call it, which is strong guidance. There are no direct sibling alternatives for updating preferences, so not naming an alternative is acceptable.

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