update_recruiting_vacancy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context: the tool updates mutable fields, accepts various ID formats, and allows clearing fields by passing null. This provides additional transparency beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing additional details. Every word serves a purpose—no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 9 parameters, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: identifier formats, requirement to provide at least one field, and clearing behavior. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., permissions), but the idempotentHint and output schema reduce the need for more context. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an update tool.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds important semantic meaning for the 'vacancy' parameter (acceptable ID formats) and clarifies the requirement to pass at least one field. It also reiterates the clearing behavior for nullable parameters, which is already in the schema but is useful context.

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 mutable Recruiting vacancy fields.' It specifies the resource (Recruiting vacancy) and action (update), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_recruiting_vacancy and archive_recruiting_vacancy. It also details the identifier formats accepted.

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 says 'Provide at least one field' and 'Pass null for fullDescription, company, location, or dueTo to clear,' giving clear usage instructions. It doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the context of 'update' implies modification of existing entities, which is sufficient for most agents.

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