update_education

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive/overwriting, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any permissions/auth requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant omission.

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 short (a single fragment), which technically is concise, but under-specification should not be rewarded as conciseness. A short but uninformative description earns a neutral-to-low score. There is no front-loading of key information or structured content—just a single vague phrase.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'data' object with many optional fields. The single-phrase description does not cover the return value, partial vs full update semantics, which fields are mutually exclusive (e.g., type enum values), or validation behaviors. For a tool with this complexity and coverage gaps, the description is 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%, and the description adds zero parameter-level information. However, each parameter inside the nested 'data' object has its own description (tags, type, field, degree, etc.). The id parameter is described as 'エントリID (UUID)' and data as an object type. The description adds nothing beyond schema, but the schema itself documents parameters reasonably, so a baseline-adjacent 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 '学歴・教育を更新' (update education/educational background) is largely a translation of the tool name. It restates the name without specifying what operation is performed, what resources are affected, or how it differs from related tools like create_education or delete_education. The verb '更新' (update) plus 'education' adds minimal information beyond the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_education (for new entries) or update_career_entry/update_skill for other profile types. No context about when an education record should be modified, what valid states exist, or prerequisites (e.g., must the entry already exist, must an ID be obtained first via list_education/get_education).

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