beta_recruitment_criteria__update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the PATCH method, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects beyond the annotation baseline.

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 single sentence plus the endpoint, with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 simple update tool with a well-defined schema, the description is adequate but does not explain return values, error conditions, or update semantics beyond the schema. Given the complexity of nested objects, slightly more context about what attributes can be updated would improve completeness.

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 100% for the two parameters, with meaningful descriptions for 'id' and 'body'. The top-level description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a beta recruitment criteria' clearly states the action (update) and resource (beta recruitment criteria), and the PATCH endpoint reinforces the HTTP method. It differentiates from sibling tools like create/delete.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like beta_recruitment_criteria__create or beta_groups__beta_recruitment_criteria__get. The usage is implied only by the tool name.

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