create_career_entry

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. It doesn't state whether creation is an insert, whether duplicates are prevented, whether certain dates must be validated, or what happens on partial failure. For a create operation with nested object structure, this is a significant gap.

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 terse phrase '経歴を新規作成' - this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no elaboration on the data model, required fields beyond the schema, or the distinction between period_year/period_start/period_end.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested object, 16+ fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The single-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to understand the full data model, date field relationships (period_start/period_end/period_year), or validation between confidence/importance ranges.

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?

The schema has 50% description coverage - fields like role, tags, domain, summary, insights, metadata, org_type, confidence, importance, period_end, mentionable, period_year, mention_tone, organization, period_start all have inline descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is reasonably self-documenting. A score of 3 reflects the baseline with moderate schema coverage.

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 '経歴を新規作成' (Create new career history) states the verb+resource clearly, but it's overly terse and doesn't distinguish from siblings like create_custom_entry, create_project, or create_education which follow the same create pattern. Without English or detail, the agent can only infer it creates a career/experience record.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives like create_custom_entry or update_career_entry. There's no mention of prerequisites, validation rules, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools.

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