Update Application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that status/deadline/notes can change, but does not explain side effects such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether notes or deadline can be cleared, or what the response will contain. This is a meaningful gap 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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (moving an application along the pipeline) and then mentions the optional revision targets. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose and is supported by full parameter coverage and an output schema, but it omits usage guidance and behavioral details. For an update operation on an application, an agent would benefit from knowing whether fields are replaced wholesale and what happens when null is passed.

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 100%, and each parameter has an explanatory description, including status values and the ISO date format for deadline. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, but because the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: moves an application along a pipeline or revises its deadline/notes. It goes beyond the tool name by naming specific updatable aspects, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like track_application.

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 description implies when the tool is useful: to change an application's status, deadline, or notes. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a gap given sibling tools like track_application and list_applications exist.

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