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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds the materially useful behavioral fact that this is a partial update which leaves unpassed fields untouched, and labels the operation as a WRITE. It still doesn't disclose permission/authorization requirements, whether changes are reversible or notification-triggering, or what happens when ClientId reattaches a job to a different client.

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 terse fragments, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action, then the field groups, then the backing endpoint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 27-parameter mutation with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential call-correctness facts (required UUID via schema, partial-update semantics, writable field families). Remaining gaps are side-effect and failure behavior, which the annotations do not carry either.

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 schema already documents all 27 parameters with examples. The description's field-group summary (status/sub-status, reschedule, contact, address, type, source, notes, tags) organizes but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource (update fields on an existing job) and enumerates the updatable field groups, so an agent can immediately tell this is a partial-update mutation on an existing record rather than a create. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. workiz_assign_job for assignment-only changes), so differentiation is inferred from 'existing job' rather than stated.

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 'Only the fields you pass are sent' clause implies the correct usage pattern for a PATCH-style update, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any statement of when to prefer workiz_assign_job / workiz_unassign_job / workiz_update_lead over this tool. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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