add_education

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a 'Write operation' and that IDs are custom field option IDs in Harvest v3, which is useful. But it omits required-permission/auth needs, duplicate-handling, reversibility, and which fields are mandatory beyond the schema's single required param.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action and 'Write operation' signal come first, followed by the ID lookup guidance. No wasted sentences, though the sentence fragments are slightly telegraphic.

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 values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description supplies the lookup workflow needed to populate IDs. It is nearly complete for a write tool, with the only gap being mutation behavior (duplicates, effects on existing entries).

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 every parameter, including date formats and the lookup source for each ID. The description's added value is mostly the Harvest v3 option-ID note, which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Add an education entry to a candidate.' An agent immediately knows the action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling remove_education or explain the relationship to other candidate sub-resource tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisite chains for the ID parameters (search_candidates_by_name for candidate_id, list_schools/list_degrees/list_disciplines for the option IDs). This is clear usage context, though it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among candidate-editing tools.

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