update_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that updates are partial and that first_name is automatically preserved. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The partial update detail adds value but is minimal.

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 (two sentences plus a parenthetical) and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the partial update mechanism could be phrased more clearly. Overall, it is efficient for its length.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It provides an output schema (context signal: true), but does not explain its structure. Many parameter behaviors and constraints are left undocumented, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 only adds meaning for the slug (endpoint) and first_name (auto-preserved). The other 16 parameters have no additional semantic information beyond their names and types, leaving the agent to guess their meanings.

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 action ('Update a candidate'), the resource ('candidate'), and even specifies the HTTP method and endpoint ('partial POST to /v1/candidates/{slug}'). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function and distinguishes it from create tools.

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 explains the partial update behavior (only non-None fields forwarded, omitted fields preserved) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as assign_candidate or create_candidate. No when-not conditions or sibling comparisons are given.

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