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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'WRITE:' prefix is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the partial-update contract ('Only the fields you pass are sent') and the backing endpoint (POST /job/update/). It stops short of describing auth requirements or reversibility.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the resource, closing with the endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what can be changed, the partial-update semantics, and the target endpoint. It omits permission/auth requirements and behavioral notes on how updates interact with existing values, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 value by grouping the 27 parameters into functional clusters (status/sub-status, reschedule, contact, address, type, source, notes, tags) and naming the exact reschedule fields. This helps an agent navigate a large flat schema, though it does not add format details beyond what the schema provides.

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) and resource (an existing job), then enumerates the exact field groups that can change and names the concrete API fields for rescheduling. The word 'existing' plus the field list cleanly separates it from workiz_create_job and workiz_update_lead.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for modifying an existing job, and 'Only the fields you pass are sent' signals partial-update semantics. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites or the alternative tool to reach for a full replacement.

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