update_recruiting_review

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

The description discloses that setting description, verdict, application, company, or location to null clears those fields, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with an update operation. The description effectively supplements by explaining the null-clearing behavior.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds important details about identification and null handling. It front-loads essential info. The second sentence is somewhat dense but still efficient, with 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?

The description addresses review identification and null clearing, but given the tool has 12 parameters and low schema coverage, more context is needed. It does not explain other updateable fields, return values (output schema exists but not described), or any prerequisites. While it covers key aspects, it is not comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is low at 42%, so the description should compensate. It explains the review parameter's accepted formats and disambiguation, and the null-clearing for some fields. However, it lacks explanations for many parameters (e.g., date, dueDate, participants) beyond what the schema provides. This adds some value but is insufficient given the coverage gap.

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 'Update a Recruiting review' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_recruiting_review, delete_recruiting_review, and get_recruiting_review by focusing on modification. It also details how to identify the review uniquely using various formats (raw _id, RVE-<number>, number, or exact title), making the purpose explicit.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to update an existing recruiting review. It mentions disambiguation via candidate/applicationContext, which helps in selecting the correct review. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as when creating or deleting a review. This still offers good guidance but lacks exclusions.

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