preview_education_update

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the gating behavior: the tool is disabled by default and requires provider-advertised capability. It does not say whether previewing is side-effect-free read-only, whether changes are applied only after execute_confirmed_mutation, or what a preview result looks like, which are the key behavioral questions for a dry-run 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the capability gate is stated up front. The first sentence is slightly ungrammatical ('a education') but that does not impede comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description does not describe what is previewed, what fields are valid, or what the caller receives back. The capability precondition is the only substantive addition, leaving an agent to guess at the input contract.

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 description must carry the burden, yet it says nothing about 'provider' (valid values linkedin/naukri) or the 'changes' array. It omits the fact that each change needs a field, an operation of set/remove, and an optional value, and that there is a 25-item cap.

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 specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('education mutation'), which distinguishes it from the many other preview_* siblings such as preview_profile_update and preview_resume_update. It stops short of saying what the education mutation covers (e.g. degrees, institutions), so the resource is named but not scoped.

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 a real precondition ('Disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability'), which implies checking a capability discovery tool first. However, it does not name that sibling (discover_provider_capabilities) or say that preview is the step preceding execute_confirmed_mutation, leaving the workflow sequence implicit.

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