update_application

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'Update' is consistent with them. However, the description omits the key behavioral trait that this is a partial update where unspecified nullable fields may be preserved or cleared, which an agent needs to know.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and affected fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the German value examples push it slightly toward being a list rather than a definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a 10-parameter mutation with low schema coverage, the description should disclose partial-update semantics and the remaining fields, which it does not.

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 only 30% across 10 params, so the description must compensate. It covers status (with German example values that hint at the enum meanings), dates, and notes, but leaves channel, contact_person, and employer_address undocumented, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 ('an application') and enumerates the updatable categories (status, dates, notes). It is clearly distinct from add_application and list_applications by name, though it does not explicitly state the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_application, delete_entry, or proof_of_applications, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application_id) or exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the verb.

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