update_recruiting_comment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the constraint on commentId ownership. It does not elaborate on side effects, authorization, or error handling beyond that.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and scope in the first sentence and a critical constraint in the second. No extraneous 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 complexity (3 params, complex target object, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and a key constraint. It could mention prerequisites like authentication or return value format, but is generally adequate.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the constraint on commentId without adding new information, so it does not significantly enhance understanding 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 that the tool updates a single comment attached to specific Recruiting entities (vacancy, candidate, applicant, review, opinion). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_recruiting_comment and delete_recruiting_comment by using the verb 'Update' and specifying the scope.

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 implies when to use (to update an existing recruiting comment) and provides a prerequisite condition ('commentId must belong to the resolved target'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with generic update_comment.

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