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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the basic behavioral profile. The description adds the phrase 'schema-bound public API fields', which implies that only fields present in the schema are updatable, but it does not clarify whether it is a partial or full update, nor does it mention any side effects beyond the annotations. Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is an adequate but not enriching addition.

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?

The description is a single sentence of moderate length, which is concise and front-loads the core action ('Update a job posting'). It avoids redundancy and gets to the point quickly. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it sacrifices detail for conciseness, but it is appropriately sized for a simple update tool despite the underlying complexity.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (17 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no description of return values or error handling), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics (partial vs. full overwrite), what fields are actually updatable, any prerequisites, or what the response contains. The description leaves the agent guessing about crucial details that are not covered by annotations or schema. For a tool this complex, far more context is needed.

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 12%, meaning the vast majority of the 17 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate for this gap; it says nothing about what fields like slug, title, location_type, salary_display, or custom_questions mean or how they interact. The only field descriptions in the schema are for location_country and interview_plan_id, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the other parameters. The description fails to add any parameter-level clarity.

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?

The description states the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'job posting', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, archive, publish, and read. The phrase 'schema-bound public API fields' also hints at the scope of updatable fields, though it could be more explicit about which fields are included. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous and easily separable from other job posting operations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yardstick_job_postings_create, publish, or archive. It does not mention that create should be used for new postings or that publish/archive handle lifecycle changes. The usage context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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