Update an existing work experience entry by its ID, modifying fields such as title, company, dates, location, and description.
Update an existing work experience entry by ID. Requires write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Experience ID | |
| title | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| body_html | No | ||
| skill_ids | No | ||
| is_current | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| project_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation requires write permission and targets an existing entry. However, it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens on invalid IDs, or what response to expect. This is a moderate disclosure for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation and a key requirement without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is inadequate. An agent needs to know whether fields are merged or replaced, how related skill/project IDs are handled, and what the response contains. The minimal text leaves too much unsaid for safe invocation.
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 only 9%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the required id parameter, but provides no additional meaning for the other 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema and leaves field semantics largely unexplained.
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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('existing work experience entry'), and the key identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from create_experience and delete_experience without needing to open the schema.
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 context is clear: use this to modify an existing experience entry, not to create or delete one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion conditions, but the purpose statement strongly implies the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.