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

Annotations already indicate idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the description's mention of 'Progress jobs through the pipeline' adds context about allowed status transitions. No contradictions, and it provides useful behavioral cues beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, and no extra words. Every sentence adds value: the first lists updatable fields, the second explains the pipeline progression.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, enums, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behaviors. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema likely handles that. Sufficient for an agent to use 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's value is limited. However, it adds pipeline ordering context and explicitly advises using jobs.complete for completion flow, which enhances understanding of the status enum.

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 'update' and the resource 'job', lists specific fields (status, schedule, notes, technician) that can be updated, and indicates the pipeline progression. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs.complete and jobs.create.

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 when to use this tool (for updating job details or progressing through pipeline) and provides a clear alternative: 'Use jobs.complete for the full completion flow with review requests.'

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