experience_add_employment

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds the key validation rule (at least company or role, despite required=0 in the schema) and the fact that the call returns an id consumed downstream. It does not disclose whether duplicate employers are merged or rejected, which matters for a mutation tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the first defines the resource, the second states the requirement and the follow-up workflow. The critical constraint is front-loaded after the identity sentence.

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?

With 8 optional parameters, no output schema and minimal annotations, the description does the important work: it explains the create semantics and tells the agent the response yields an id for chaining. It could go further on update/duplicate handling, but nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 100%, including the enum for kind and date formatting for start/end, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds one cross-field constraint (company-or-role) that the schema cannot express, but otherwise leaves semantics to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Record") with a concrete resource (a job or side project where evidence was produced) and names the two kinds via the schema's enum. It is clearly distinct from experience_add_achievement, which it references, though it never contrasts itself with experience_update_employment, leaving the create-vs-update boundary implicit.

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?

It gives a clear next-step chain: call this, then use the returned id with experience_add_achievement to attach achievements. It also states the minimum requirement (at least company or role). What's missing is guidance on when to prefer experience_update_employment over this tool, or how to handle duplicates.

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