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

destructiveHint=true is already supplied by annotations, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: PATCH-like semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), the side effect that 'Automations may fire', and the record_type_name workaround for rejected status changes. It does not describe the response or error surface, but for a mutation tool this is above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the partial-update semantics, the exception, and the side effect. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With 18 parameters, a nested custom_fields object, and no output schema, the description does enough: it establishes partial-update scope, the status/record_type interaction, and the automation side effect, while leaving field-level detail to the fully documented schema. Only the return/error behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter dependency not expressed in the schema: status_name may require record_type_name to succeed. That relationship is the kind of meaning the schema cannot convey, so it earns above baseline.

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 and resource ('Edit fields on an existing job') and enumerates the kinds of fields affected (status_name, address, sales rep, dates), which cleanly separates it from jobnimbus_create_job and jobnimbus_get_job. The trailing REST mapping (PUT /jobs/{jnid}) removes any ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 clear context for use (modifying an existing job), an explicit exclusion ('Cannot delete or archive'), and a conditional workaround (pass record_type_name alongside status_name if the status change is rejected). It stops short of naming the create/get siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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