create_education

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While '新規作成' (create) clearly implies a write/mutation operation, the description does not disclose whether profile_id is required, what happens on duplicate education entries, validation rules, or what the response/return value looks like. The schema hints at profile-scoped vs account-scoped key behavior, but the description doesn't surface this responsibility to the agent.

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?

Single short sentence with no waste. It's appropriately concise for what it conveys, though it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently written. For a simple create tool, one sentence is acceptable.

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 create tool with a nested data object containing 10 properties, a required type field, and profile_id handling semantics (account-scoped vs profile-scoped keys). The description is a single terse sentence that doesn't explain the main data structure requirements, the type enum constraint, or the profile binding behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to orient the 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 50% (half the schema properties have descriptions). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what's in the schema. The schema already provides decent descriptions for most fields (type enum, confidence 1-10, importance 1-10, profile_id behavior). Since coverage is moderate (~50%), the description doesn't add value beyond the schema but doesn't need to fully compensate. Baseline 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 '学歴・教育を新規作成' (create education/educational history) uses a clear verb (新規作成/create) and resource (学歴・教育/education). It's a create operation for education entries, matching sibling patterns like create_hobby, create_skill, create_project. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from other create_* tools beyond the resource name, which is somewhat self-evident from the tool name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of distinguishing from update_education, delete_education, or the related create_career_entry, or when education data should be created vs. career entries. No exclusions or context provided.

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