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

The description simply states 'update' without revealing any additional behavior. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no new context about side effects, validation, or error handling. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with zero superfluous words. It front-loads the action ('Update') and the object ('offer'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It earns high marks for efficiency and clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (17 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally acceptable but lacks context about update semantics (e.g., whether unspecified fields are left unchanged) and when to choose this over related offer tools. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not address broader usage context beyond the basic action.

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 100% schema description coverage, all 17 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining that only some fields are updatable or how partial updates are handled. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 'Update the offer recorded for a job' clearly specifies the verb (update) and resource (offer recorded for a job), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs.offer.accept, jobs.offer.decline, and jobs.offer.create. It is concise and unambiguous, effectively communicating the tool's primary function.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where jobs.offer.create or jobs.offer.add_negotiation would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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