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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries real weight: it flags the operation as a WRITE, warns that employee_ids REPLACES the current assignment, and declares which fields are non-settable. It does not cover auth requirements or response 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?

Front-loads the WRITE signal and the update verb, then the field list and endpoint. The enumerated fields make the sentence long but every clause is informative rather than filler.

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 10-param mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description supplies the PATCH endpoint, the field boundaries, and replacement semantics. Only permission requirements and return behavior remain unmentioned, which is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including employee_ids replacement semantics. The description restates the field set rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) plus resource (job) and enumerates the updatable aspects. The 'WRITE:' prefix and 'existing job' phrasing clearly separate it from kickserv_create_job and kickserv_get_job among siblings.

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 'existing job' framing implies this is for pre-existing jobs rather than creation, and it explicitly excludes totals, tax and payment fields, steering agents away from unsupported edits. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for out-of-scope changes.

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