update_education

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Add a new education entry' but the tool is named 'update_education', creating ambiguity about whether this creates a new entry or modifies an existing one. It also does not disclose whether the operation is additive, whether it replaces existing education data, or what the response looks like.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. Every parameter earns its place. The only structural issue is the name/description mismatch ('update' vs 'add') and the lack of any usage context, but the text itself is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain whether this appends a new education entry or replaces the existing one, what the response contains, or whether there are prerequisites like being logged in. The sibling list includes login and check_session, suggesting auth context matters, but the description does not mention it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list all six parameters with brief human-readable explanations, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it does not clarify formats for start/end dates, whether degree or field_of_study are required in practice, or how description is used. The parameter list is helpful but shallow.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Add a new education entry to the profile.' This distinguishes it from siblings like update_experience and update_headline, which target different profile sections. However, the tool name says 'update' while the description says 'add', which is a slight inconsistency that could confuse an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for adding a new education entry rather than editing an existing one, nor does it contrast with update_experience or other profile-update tools. The context is implied by the resource name but not explicitly stated.

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