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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating and destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description confirms the mutation and names the statuses involved, but does not explain consequences such as visibility changes, reversibility, or whether archiving removes the job from boards.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, and the parenthetical status list justifies its place by giving the caller the main valid values without restating the schema.

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 small mutation tool, the description plus schema covers the basics: the job identifier and the new status. However, it relies entirely on the schema to point at hires_list_statuses, and does not mention side effects or what happens to a published job when archived.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful status vocabulary ('publish, unpublish, archive') but only loosely matches the schema's examples (Draft, Public, Archived) and does not clarify the id or include 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?

The description states a clear action and resource: 'Change job status', with usable values 'publish, unpublish, archive'. It is not a tautology and is more specific than a generic update tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like hires_update_job.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as hires_update_job, hires_publish_to_job_board, or hires_list_jobs. The only hint is the status parameter description, which is in the schema, not the tool description.

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