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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description does add genuine context beyond that: edits are scoped to the employer's own jobs and trigger a search re-index. It omits important behavior for a destructive mutation — whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs full replace) and whether an edit forces the post back into review.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is compact. Slightly long enumeration, but every item earns its place by telling the agent what is editable.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what can be edited but not the semantics that matter most: partial-update behavior, whether edits invalidate an existing review/approval, and any confirmation or permission requirement. Adequate, but with real gaps for a write 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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the empty-string clearing rule for applyUrl. The description's field list merely mirrors the parameter set rather than adding format or validation meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates fields of one of the employer's jobs") and enumerates the editable fields, plus a secondary effect (re-indexing for search). This separates it from post_job and draft_job_post, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the very close sibling update_job_status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as update_job_status for lifecycle changes or review_job_post for re-approval. The only implicit cue is the phrase "one of the employer's jobs", which hints at ownership scope but not at selection between siblings.

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