update_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 fails to state that this is a mutating write operation (which could affect existing data), whether partial updates are supported (only the data object fields present get updated), whether a non-existent id causes an error, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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 extremely under-specified — just four characters ('経歴を更新') that merely restate the tool name. This is not conciseness but a failure to communicate. No useful information is conveyed beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 tool has 2 parameters (one of which is a deeply nested object with 15 fields), no output schema, no annotations, and moderate schema coverage, the description should provide substantial context. It provides essentially none. The agent cannot determine what gets updated, whether this supports partial vs full replacement, error handling, or what a successful update returns. The complex nested data structure makes this particularly inadequate.

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%, meaning the schema documents only a subset of the parameters. The data object has 15 nested properties which are individually described in the schema with Japanese descriptors, but the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't explain the relationship between the two required parameters (id and data), the semantics of partial updates, or the intent of the more obscure fields. With moderate coverage and a complex nested object, the description should compensate but does not.

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 '経歴を更新' (Update career history) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It identifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'career entry', but provides no additional specification about what fields can be updated, what the update scope is, or how it differs from sibling tools like update_education, update_skill, update_project, etc.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_education, update_skill, update_project, update_achievement, or the create/get/list career entry siblings. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., the entry must exist first), no mention that id must reference an existing career entry, and no exclusions or context about when this is the appropriate choice.

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