update_recruiting_attachment

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it updates description/pinned state and requires attachmentId to belong to target. Does not elaborate on side effects or unchanged fields, but sufficient given annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second highlights a key constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, description covers entities, updatable fields, and constraint. Could mention permissions or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for a straightforward update tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description merely summarizes that description and pinned state can be updated, adding no new semantics 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?

Clearly states the tool updates description and/or pinned state for a file attached to Recruiting entities (vacancy, candidate, applicant, opinion). The description distinguishes it from siblings like update_attachment by specifying the recruiting context and supported entity kinds.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_attachment, delete_recruiting_attachment). Only implies usage via the action description; lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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