Edit Career Profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: 'Writes immediately with no draft gate' and the wholesale-replacement semantics that justify the idempotent hint. It does not cover failure modes or validation behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the target and affected fields, then the critical merge semantics, then the side-effect warning. No filler.

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, so the description carries the behavioral load, and it does so well for a zero-required-parameter mutation tool: it covers scope, merge behavior, read-before-write routing, and immediacy. Minor gaps remain around input shape hints and error handling.

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% and all four parameters are undocumented nullables, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by mapping its four named fields to the four parameters and clarifying the replace-not-merge semantics, though it says nothing about the expected shape of the contact object or skills array.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Career KB profile') and enumerates exactly which fields it touches (contact block, summary, skill groups, notes). It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like kb_edit_point and kb_edit_entity by scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 concrete guidance on how to use it correctly: omitted fields are untouched, supplied fields are replaced wholesale, and current values live in get_career_context (a named sibling to consult first). It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion relative to the point/entity editors.

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