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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: partial-update semantics ("Only the fields you pass change"), side effects ("Automations may fire"), an error-recovery rule for status changes, and an explicit negative scope (no delete/archive). This is well beyond what the annotation provides.

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 tight sentences front-load the operation and its partial-update behavior, then layer caveats and the endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; no filler or 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-parameter mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers side effects, partial-update mechanics, failure handling, and limits. It could say a bit more about the response/permission context (e.g., that maestro result shape or actor requirements for the write), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot: the status_name + record_type_name coupling on rejection and the fact that unspecified fields are left untouched. It also flags custom_fields quirks (is_active/is_archived ignored) consistent with the schema's own note.

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+resource ("Edit fields on an existing job") and enumerates concrete examples of the fields it edits (status_name, address, sales rep, dates). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling write tools jobnimbus_create_job and jobnimbus_update_contact, which target creation or a different resource.

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?

Gives real in-operation guidance: pass record_type_name alongside status_name if the status change is rejected, and the tool "Cannot delete or archive," which excludes a class of use. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use jobnimbus_create_job for new records), so a small routing gap remains.

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