Create Career Entity

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the write is immediate with no draft gate, that no duplicate is blocked and possible_duplicates hints come back, and that a certificate PDF cannot be created here and must be uploaded via the web UI. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource and the kind enum, then progressively adds constraints. Dense but each clause adds a real constraint; a small amount of parenthetical nesting makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 an 8-param mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk pieces (immediate persistence, no dedupe, kind='extra' nesting, upload limitation). The undocumented side of the parameters (status, notes, date formats) is the remaining gap.

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 carries the burden. It does define kind's value set, the free-form detail dict conventions (tech/link/field), and the nested section_key/section_type/section_title requirement for kind='extra', but org, notes, status, start_date and end_date receive no semantic treatment at all.

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 (Create) and resource (Career KB entity) and enumerates the concrete kinds it accepts (experience|project|education|certification|extra). An agent can distinguish this from kb_edit_entity and kb_capture without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: 'writes immediately and is not draft-gated' contrasts indirectly with the draft/approval flow behind kb_capture and kb_approve_points, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing against siblings.

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