experience_remove_employment

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: discloses the cascading consequence (everything recorded under it would be deleted), the 409 refusal behavior, and irreversibility ('There is no undo'), plus a confirmation step with the candidate. This is exactly the context an agent needs before an irreversible mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the constraint and the consequence, then the remediation workflow. Slightly undercut by the inconsistent 'place/bank' wording, but every sentence carries real content.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers precondition, failure mode, remediation path, and irreversibility. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and the id parameter already documents origin (experience_list) and opacity. The description adds no additional format or lookup guidance beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: deleting an experience entry that must be empty. The mechanics are clear, though the vocabulary mismatch ('place from the bank') against the tool name and schema field ('employment id') adds avoidable ambiguity that the later sentences only partly resolve.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (must hold no achievements), what happens if violated (server refuses with 409), and the alternative workflow: move achievements with experience_update_achievement, then remove the empty shell. It names the sibling tool directly, so there is no guesswork.

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