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

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond repeating the action enum. It does not disclose that delete_job is irreversible or otherwise describe side effects, which is important for a destructive multi-action tool.

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 sentence is short and 'Edit JTBD graph' is front-loaded, but brevity is achieved by listing values already present in the schema. The 'fill_in job' phrase is grammatically awkward, and the structure provides no explanatory elaboration to justify its brevity.

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?

A 14-parameter destructive dispatcher tool with only 7% schema description coverage and no output schema needs per-action parameter mappings and behavior notes. The description is far too incomplete for an agent to know how to construct a valid call or what consequences to expect.

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?

With 14 parameters and only 7% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameters, but it does not. The action list adds no meaning beyond the schema enum and none of the action-specific parameters are mapped to their corresponding operations.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Edit JTBD graph') and lists the available actions, which distinguishes it from jtbd_read at a high level. However, it never explains what a JTBD graph is or what the listed actions actually do, and the action list simply duplicates the input schema's enum.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like interviews_edit, projects_edit, or jtbd_read. It also does not explain how an agent should select among the six action values for a given editing scenario.

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