experience_update_employment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description earns its keep by disclosing the non-obvious PATCH semantics — omitted fields are preserved from the banked row despite the API replacing the whole row. That is exactly the trap an agent would fall into. It does not mention permission or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core identity ('correct a place') comes first, the critical partial-update behavior second, and the concrete use case last. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a nine-parameter mutation with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields omit — merge-vs-replace semantics. A brief note on the response or on the failure mode when the id is unknown would make it 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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that this is a merge-style update where unspecified fields carry over. Without that, an agent could wrongly assume omitted fields are cleared, which matters for all nine parameters.

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 ('Correct a place already in the bank') and the tool name confirms it is an employment record. It distinguishes itself from the add/remove siblings by framing this as correction, but 'place' and 'the bank' are soft wording that doesn't literally name the employment record.

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?

'Use this to fix a name, a role, or dates' gives a clear when-to-use condition with concrete examples. It does not explicitly point at experience_add_employment or experience_remove_employment as alternatives for non-correction cases, which is the remaining gap.

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