update_recruiting_applicant

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

The description discloses that passing null clears assignee, startDate, or dueDate, adding behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions with idempotentHint=true or readOnlyHint=false.

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 concise sentences: first lists updatable fields, second explains applicant format, third explains clearing via null. No filler, 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers core usage, parameter formats, and clearing behavior. It could mention partial update semantics but is generally complete.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining applicant identifier formats, disambiguation roles of vacancy/candidate, and how to clear fields. It adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 updates specific fields (status, assignee, startDate, dueDate) of a recruiting applicant. It distinguishes itself from create/delete/get by explicitly being an update operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). It provides parameter guidance but lacks usage context or prerequisites.

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