update_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation action ('Add') but provides no details on idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects. The 'leave blank for present role' hint touches on behavior but is more parameter-specific than a broader behavioral disclosure.

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 a compact docstring with the action statement followed by a clear parameter list. It is efficient, with no extraneous information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists but overall structure is good.

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 covers all parameters but omits essential context: it does not specify which profile is affected, whether this is for the current user, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites like authentication. The mismatch between 'Add' and the tool name 'update' is also unaddressed, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining every parameter: title, company, start (with format examples), end, description, employment_type (listing allowed values), and location. This is far more than the schema provides and fully clarifies each argument's meaning.

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 'Add a new experience entry to the profile', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling update_education by focusing on 'experience' vs 'education'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the tool name 'update_experience', which implies modification rather than creation, introducing potential ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_education or update_headline. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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