Edit Career Point

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: text changes revert the point to DRAFT and drop it from the composed resume and career export until re-approved, which explains the destructiveHint. It also discloses the input-normalization rules (dashes converted, third-person lines rejected with a 400) that no structured field carries.

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 action, then consequences, then exclusions, then normalization rules — a sensible ordering. It is dense and the final sentence is slightly overloaded, but every clause adds operative information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the mutation's side effects and failure mode (400) but not what a successful call returns. For a 3-parameter destructive edit, the safety and lifecycle story is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'text' carries the dash-normalization and third-person-400 rules, and 'retag it' clarifies that tags are a replaceable set. point_id is left implicit, but it is self-evident as the required key.

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 and resource: 'Reword a Career KB point or retag it', naming both editable fields. It is clearly separable from siblings like kb_add_points, kb_combine_points, and kb_retire_points.

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?

Explicit exclusion — 'Cannot approve, retire or delete a point' — routes agents to kb_approve_points for re-approval, which is the key follow-up. It doesn't discuss when to prefer this over kb_combine_points or kb_groom_entity when restructuring content, so not quite a full when/when-not map.

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