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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: editing a live or closed role sends it back through moderation before it becomes public again. It also flags the user-confirmation requirement, which is essential context for a destructive mutation.

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-loaded with the operation list, followed by the two highest-value caveats (moderation re-review, confirmation requirement). Three tight sentences with no filler; the enumeration is dense but each item maps to a real capability.

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 destructive multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, mutation side effects, and the confirmation gate, and the schema details the confirmation_token handshake. It stops short of explaining what each action returns or whether close vs delete differ in reversibility.

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 only 13% (just confirmation_token), so the description must compensate. It lists the editable fields (title, type, location, apply link, description), mapping loosely onto title/role_type/location/apply_url/description, but gives no format, length, or action-to-field mapping detail that the bare schema lacks.

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?

Names a specific resource (a job owned by the member) and enumerates the exact operations: edit title/type/location/apply link/description, close, or permanently remove. An agent can separate this from post_job (creation) and update_my_listing without opening the 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?

It scopes the tool to jobs the member owns and implicitly contrasts edit vs close vs remove, but it never names an alternative tool or states when-not to use it (e.g., use update_my_listing for listing edits). The confirmation prerequisite is stated, but that is a procedure rather than usage guidance.

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