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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a non-obvious platform constraint (customer_id, job_type and billing are mandatory on every update), explains the compensating read-then-write behavior, warns that this is two requests, and flags the absence of a version check — i.e., last-write-wins concurrency risk. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, mutation intent and the endpoint front-loaded, then the required-field quirk, then the atomicity caveat. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 an 18-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gotchas an agent needs to call it correctly. It is thin only on error behavior (e.g., invalid job_id, what a failed read-modify-write leaves behind), which is a minor residual gap.

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 18 parameters and only 56% schema description coverage, the description usefully explains that customer_id/job_type/billing/current status are auto-preserved unless overridden, which the schema alone does not state. It does not add meaning for several bare parameters (notes, field_notes, subtitle, tags), leaving part of the coverage gap unaddressed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("WRITE: change a job") and enumerates the mutable facets — status, schedule, notes, assignments, location — plus the concrete endpoint PUT /jobs/{jobId}. It is clearly distinguishable from fieldpulse_create_job and fieldpulse_get_job without opening a schema.

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 "WRITE:" prefix and "change a job" make it evident this targets an existing job rather than creation, and it describes partial-update semantics ("keeps those ... unless you pass new values"). However, it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like fieldpulse_create_job or states when not to use it.

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