update_application_status

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 adds minimal context: 'one application' implies a single record, and 'private notes' suggests privacy. However, it does not disclose mutation effects, error handling, permissions, idempotency, or whether statuses are validated. This lack of behavioral detail for a write operation 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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff and uses precise qualifiers ('one', 'optional', 'private'). However, it is slightly under-specified, which limits the value of its brevity.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the application, what statuses are valid, the return value, or side effects. This is inadequate for safe usage, especially without annotation support.

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 description mentions 'status' and 'notes' but does not explain their semantics beyond the schema. It omits application_id entirely. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining allowed status values, notes formatting, or parameter relationships, but it does not. The only added meaning is that notes are 'private' and that the operation targets 'one application.'

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 a specific action: 'Update one application status and optional private notes.' It identifies the resource (application) and the operation (update), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application, list_applications, and analyse_application_fit. However, it does not explicitly mention how to differentiate it from alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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. The description does not provide context such as 'use when you need to change a status' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply defines the action without situating it among the sibling tools.

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