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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral detail – that a human-readable summary lands in a `say` field (relevant since there is no output schema) – but says nothing about required permissions, whether omissions are partial updates or overwrites, or error behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The field enumeration comes second where it belongs, though the stray `say` note reads as an afterthought rather than integrated 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the action and the editable fields and hints at the return value, but omits partial-update semantics, the required post_id, and any enclosing workflow (how it relates to post_job/close_post). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does name the editable categories, mapping roughly onto description, pay_lo/pay_hi, closes_in_days, and questions. However, it adds no format, range, or interaction semantics (e.g., pay_hi/pay_lo pairing, whether closes_in_days is relative), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 clear verb (change) and resource (job post) and enumerates the mutable fields (description, pay, closing date, screening questions), which helps separate it from create-only siblings like post_job. It does not explicitly name or contrast with close_post or restore_version, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer update_post over close_post, undo_change, or restore_version for a given intent.

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