update_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not state whether the operation is a partial update (only provided fields), whether existing unmentioned fields are preserved, whether validation occurs, or what the response looks like. No safety, permission, or side-effect information is shared.

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 with no fluff and no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource. However, for a tool with 19 parameters, this brevity borders on underwhelming, though it remains efficient and easy to parse. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for potentially being too sparse given the complexity.

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 high parameter count (19), nested objects, and total absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs (slug), behavior on partial updates, how nested settings interact, or what constitutes a successful call. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply and guess at semantics, making the description inadequate for correct 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions broad categories like 'proctoring' and 'pool mode' but does not map them to specific parameters (e.g., enforce_fullscreen, screen_recording_enabled for proctoring; pool_settings, shuffle_strategy for pool mode). Parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but the description adds little to clarify ambiguous ones like tag_quotas or violation_review_threshold. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses the verb 'Update' with resource 'assessment' and enumerates the updatable aspects (metadata, status, proctoring, pool mode, squad), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from list/get/create tools but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_interview_template. The mention of specific categories adds specificity without being a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_assessment, duplicate_assessment, or other update tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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