Rewrite a recruit's persona

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it states the superseded version is snapshotted as a numbered revision, memory (history.jsonl) remains untouched, and it refuses rather than creating if the recruit does not exist. These are meaningful, non-obvious side effects beyond what the tool name alone implies.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second covers the snapshot behavior, and the third covers memory preservation and the refusal case. There is no redundant filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complex 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is changed, side effects, and failure mode. The one notable gap is that it does not describe the return value or how the agent should confirm success (e.g., new revision number or updated persona), which would improve completeness.

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 89%, so the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description only lists a subset of parameter names without adding deeper meaning beyond the schema; it neither clarifies the nested authoring_rating object nor the autonomy enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific mutating verb ('Change') and explicitly enumerates the affected resources: system prompt, tags, params, model, fallback_model. It also disambiguates from sibling tools by stating 'it never creates one' and mentioning the snapshot/revision behavior, which clearly separates it from recruit (creation) and rollback_persona (restoration).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (change an existing recruit's persona) and a when-not ('Refuses if the recruit does not exist; it never creates one'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as show_persona for viewing or rollback_persona for reverting, so the usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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