beta_recruitment_criteria__update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent understands safety and retry behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond saying 'Update,' which is consistent. With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and an HTTP path, making it concise. However, it lacks key information such as prerequisites or response, balancing conciseness with adequacy at a score of 3.

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 is too brief for an update operation with a nested body parameter. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or confirm the JSON:API format (though hinted in schema). Given the tool's moderate complexity, more context is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score 3 is applied.

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 beta recruitment criteria,' identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'beta_recruitment_criteria__create' or 'beta_recruitment_criteria__delete', limiting clarity on scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). No context about prerequisites, failure cases, or appropriate use cases is provided.

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