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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: the WRITE prefix, the fact that employee_ids replaces the existing assignment (destructive overwrite), the exclusion of totals/tax/payment, and the underlying PATCH endpoint. It omits permission requirements and whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE signal, the mutable-field list follows immediately, and the endpoint string is tucked at the end. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers scope, exclusions and the destructive employee-reassignment behavior. It leaves unstated whether the PATCH is partial/merge semantics and what error behavior to expect for an invalid job_number.

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; the description still adds value by mapping fields to business concepts (job_type_id = category, job_status_id = custom job status) and by explicitly stating which parameter space is absent (totals, tax, payment). The 'replaces the assignment' note duplicates the schema text, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 the resource (an existing job) and enumerates the mutable surface: reschedule, rename, description, category, custom job status, employee reassignment. That enumeration cleanly separates it from kickserv_create_job and kickserv_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 line 'Totals, tax and payment fields are not settable here' implicitly routes charge/money edits elsewhere (e.g. kickserv_add_job_charge) and prevents wasted calls, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, name an alternative tool explicitly or state when-not-to-use conditions such as a missing job_number.

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