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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by clarifying the exact scope of mutation: only the Job row is closed, and linked job postings, applications, and interview plans are untouched. This is valuable behavioral context that prevents an agent from assuming cascading effects.

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, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately clarifies the non-cascading behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description provides the key scoping detail (no cascading mutations) but omits other useful context such as prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), what 'closed' means for downstream behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, but the description could be more complete about the state change.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. However, the description does not explain job_id, request_id, or idempotency_key beyond what the schema provides (names and types). The description's scope note indirectly clarifies that job_id refers to a Job row, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail for the optional parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('one Job row only'), and explicitly distinguishes its scope from related operations by noting that linked job postings, applications, and interview plans are not mutated. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the intent is to close a single job row without affecting related records. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., yardstick_jobs_archive or yardstick_jobs_update), but the scope limitation provides some guidance.

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