update_application

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and 'Returns updated application details,' but does not clarify whether this is a partial or complete update, what happens to omitted fields, or any permission requirements.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear verb, Args list, and Returns section. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though the brevity leaves out meaningful operational details.

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 nested application_data object and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not explain the data structure, validation rules, or error behaviors, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides tautological glosses like 'applicant_id: The applicant ID.' The key parameter application_data is vaguely described as a 'dictionary' with no mention of required keys, allowed values, or structure.

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 'Update an application status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_applicant and get_application. However, the focus on 'status' may be narrower than the actual application_data object being updated, creating slight ambiguity.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the application must already exist or if specific statuses are required for the update.

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