set_recruiting_candidate_profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool can 'Create or update,' which implies idempotent upsert behavior, consistent with the idempotentHint. However, it does not disclose what happens if the candidate does not exist (it says 'on an existing person,' suggesting failure or no-op). No additional behavioral traits are revealed beyond what annotations imply, so the description provides minimal extra value.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides critical parameter guidance and a usage requirement. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, how to identify the candidate, and the minimum parameter requirement. It does not explain the 'mixin' concept, which might be domain-specific but could be inferred from context. The presence of sibling tools and the tool's domain (recruiting) provides reasonable context. Overall, it is mostly complete, with a minor gap for new agents.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each property described (e.g., 'a string that will be trimmed' or boolean descriptions). The description enhances parameter understanding by specifying that 'candidate accepts person _id, email, or exact display name,' which clarifies valid input types beyond 'string.' It also mandates 'Provide at least one of title, source, onsite, remote,' adding a constraint not present in the schema. This meaningful addition improves the agent's ability to use parameters correctly.

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 the tool's function: 'Create or update the Recruiting Candidate profile mixin on an existing person.' It specifies the verb (create/update), resource (profile mixin), and scope (on an existing person). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, such as create_recruiting_applicant or update_recruiting_vacancy, and the concept of 'mixin' is not explained, which could confuse an agent. Overall, the purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 some usage context, such as 'Provide at least one of title, source, onsite, remote,' which indicates the minimum input requirement. It also explains how to identify the candidate ('person _id, email, or exact display name'). However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other candidate-related tools like add_recruiting_candidate_skill), nor does it mention conditions under which the tool should not be used. This leaves the agent without clear guidance for selection.

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