hires_set_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Change job status' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, valid status values, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return value and error behavior, which are relevant. However, the parameter schema is fully documented, and the use-case guidance helps an agent decide when to invoke it. It is minimally adequate but not rich in context.

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. The description's mention of publish/unpublish/archive transitions hints at acceptable status values but adds no practical detail beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Change job status') and resource ('job status'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is a dedicated endpoint for publish/unpublish/archive transitions and automation workflows. This clearly separates it from general update_job or publish_to_job_board tools.

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 explicitly recommends use for publish/unpublish/archive transitions and status automation workflows, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the 'dedicated endpoint' phrasing implies it is the preferred tool for status changes.

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