update_application_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses in-place single-cell rewriting, preserved row order, the abort-on-ambiguity rule with line numbers in the error, and a non-destructive dry_run preview. It stops short of stating what happens on zero matches or any file-permission/locking failure mode, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a mutating file operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutation semantics, then matching rules, then failure handling, then optional flags. Dense but zero filler; each clause removes a decision the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation contract, matching rules, ambiguity handling, and preview mode. For a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description clarifies matching semantics beyond the schema: portal is exact while company and role are case-insensitive substrings, and role exists specifically as a disambiguator when the company match is ambiguous. It adds real operational meaning rather than restating field docs.

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?

States a precise verb and target ("rewrites one row's status cell in place") plus the exact scope of the mutation (other cells and row order untouched). This distinguishes it from log_application (adds rows) and list_applications (reads) without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: pass role rather than guess when multiple rows match, use dry_run to preview, and call list_applications first when unsure a row exists. It names siblings and the conditions that select specific behaviors, not just the tool.

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