Edit Career Entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. Beyond that the description adds real behavior: 'Omitted fields are left alone' (partial-update merging), 'writes immediately with no draft gate' (no approval step, no undo window), and 'each supplied value replaces the stored one' (overwrite, not append). That is genuine added context over the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then partial-update semantics, then the immediate-write caveat, then the immutable-field limitation. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: partial update behavior, no draft gate, destructive overwrite, and the kind immutability boundary. Missing only return-value expectations, error behavior on a bad entity_id, and the 'detail' parameter's meaning.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most fields: it maps dates, title, org, notes, and status, and supplies the status enum (ongoing|completed|archived) that the schema itself omits. It leaves the 'detail' object parameter and the date string format unaddressed, so it is strong but not complete.

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 (Fix/Edit) and resource (entity), then enumerates the editable field set (dates, title, org, notes, lifecycle status). The 'Kind cannot be changed here — that is a rebuild, not a correction' clause separates it cleanly from the create/rebuild path without the agent needing to open any 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion (kind changes belong elsewhere) and frames this as a correction rather than a rebuild, which routes the agent productively. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for rebuilds, so it lands below the explicit when/when-not/alternative bar of 5.

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