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

The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations: archive makes a job read-only and removes it from the main list, close stops applications, and restore returns a job to draft or closed depending on whether it was published. This is useful state-effect information not captured by the destructiveHint=false or idempotentHint=false annotations, though permissions and invalid-transition behavior are not covered.

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 compact, front-loaded glossary of action meanings with no filler. Its semicolon-separated structure is efficient, though the absence of a short purpose sentence makes it slightly less immediately orienting.

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 state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers all five actions and their resulting states, which is the core information an agent needs. It omits error conditions, invalid transitions, permission requirements, and side effects such as what happens to existing applications when a job is closed, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only 50%, with jobId documented in the schema and action represented only as an enum. The description compensates by defining every action value in operational terms, so an agent can understand exactly what each enum choice does. It does not add further detail for jobId, but the schema already handles that parameter.

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 enumerates concrete state transitions for publish, open, close, archive, and restore, making clear this tool changes a job's lifecycle status rather than editing details or deleting it. It lacks an explicit introductory verb+resource statement and does not name sibling tools, but the action semantics are specific enough to distinguish it from create_job, delete_job, and update_job_details.

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?

Usage guidance is implied by each action's stated effect: a draft can be published, a published job can be opened or closed, any job can be archived, and an archived job can be restored. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing this over siblings such as delete_job or update_job_details.

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