update_recruiting_opinion

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. The description adds context about identifier flexibility (raw _id, OPE-<number>, number) and the ability to clear the description by passing null. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when updating with invalid data.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be more structured.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, required opinions, and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter flexibility, and a special behavior (clearing description). It does not mention error handling or output specifics, but the output schema exists, so that is acceptable.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning for the 'opinion' parameter (accepted formats) and 'description' parameter (null to clear). For 'value' and 'review', the description adds no new information beyond the schema, but overall the description improves parameter understanding beyond schema alone.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Recruiting opinion', and specifies what can be updated (value and/or markdown description). It also provides details on identifier formats (raw _id, OPE-<number>, number), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.

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 over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases when not to use it. The mention of 'review can disambiguate' is about parameter disambiguation, not usage context.

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