apply_hr_profile_update

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

The description adds the transactional behavior of 'verify, and roll back on failure' beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not explain what 'verify' entails or what specific failure conditions trigger rollback. The annotations already indicate it is non-destructive and idempotent, so the description provides moderate additional context.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 16 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could include more parameter or usage context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and three required parameters with no descriptions. The description omits critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., must have captured the Garmin browser contract or previewed the proposal), what successful application returns, and what failure modes look like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter meanings, but it does not describe any of the three required parameters (canonicalProposal, hash, confirmed). The tool name and description imply the 'proposal' but do not map to the schema fields.

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 clearly states the verb 'Apply' and the resource 'one unchanged approved HR proposal', and specifies the mechanism ('through the captured Garmin browser contract') and the post-apply steps ('verify, and roll back on failure'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'apply_training_week' and 'preview_hr_profile_update'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'preview_hr_profile_update' or 'apply_training_week'. It does not mention prerequisites or when to avoid using it.

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