monica_occupation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It notes that 'delete is irreversible,' which is critical. However, it omits other behaviors such as authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects of updates, or whether list returns all records or requires pagination context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and a critical warning. No redundant words; the information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for simple CRUD but lacks explanation of return format, pagination behavior, error handling, and relationships with other entities. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 input schema covers all 13 parameters with full descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 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 the resource (occupations) and verb (Manage), and lists five specific actions, making its purpose immediately clear. While it distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource, it does not differentiate the scope or behavior from other Monica CRUD tools with similar patterns.

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 enumerates the allowed actions and warns about delete irreversibility, which provides basic usage constraints. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., monica_contact, monica_company), nor does it explain prerequisites or typical workflows.

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