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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is externally declared. The description adds only the notion that updates are constrained to schema-bound public API fields, not internal state. It does not describe the overwrite semantics or what destructive consequences might occur.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise while conveying the core boundary of updating only public API fields.

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 an update tool with ten parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine required fields, partial-update behavior, or the effect on existing job data from the description alone.

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% and the description does not mention job_id, status, title, or any other field by name. 'Schema-bound public API fields' is too generic to compensate for ten undocumented 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 and resource: update a Job container. It distinguishes the tool from sibling create/read/archive actions, though 'internal Job container' and 'schema-bound public API fields' are slightly jargon-heavy. It is clearer than a tautology but not as explicit as enumerating affected fields.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus jobs_archive, jobs_close, jobs_attach_artifact, or any other sibling. The description does not state prerequisites, when an update is appropriate, or when an alternative should be chosen.

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