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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: hidden jobs are removed from the user's lists and alerts, a side effect an agent would otherwise not anticipate. It still doesn't state whether the update is partial (only supplied fields changed) or that unspecified fields are left untouched.

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 the full capability list, zero filler. The side-effect note is placed last where it belongs as supplementary context.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers every operation the parameters expose plus the one non-obvious consequence (removal from lists and alerts). No return-value explanation is required since no output schema exists, and the remaining omission (partial-update semantics) is minor.

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 33% (job_id and note are documented; saved, applied, hidden, stage are bare). The description compensates well by explaining each undocumented boolean's meaning as a paired action (save/unsave, mark applied, hide/unhide). It does not discuss the stage enum semantics, but the enum values are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 names a specific resource (a job) and enumerates the concrete mutations it performs: save/unsave, mark applied, hide/unhide, set stage, set note. That maps one-to-one onto the schema's fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool can change. It stops short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with adjacent tools such as update_alert or get_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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated operations make it obvious you call this when you want to change a job's saved/applied/hidden/stage/note state. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether the job must already exist in a user list, or which sibling to call for reading state).

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