hires_update_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses two important behavioral traits: partial updates (only changed fields are sent) and preservation of domain validation. However, it omits other critical behaviors such as return value, idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects of status changes, which is significant 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 extremely concise—three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and include only high-value behavioral notes. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complex tool with 28 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not mention what the response looks like, potential error scenarios, or constraints beyond generic validation. While the schema covers individual parameters, the lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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% with descriptions for all 28 parameters, so the schema already provides semantic meaning. The tool description adds only generic guidance ('Only send fields you want to change'), which is not parameter-specific but does reinforce the partial-update semantic.

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 clearly states 'Update mutable job attributes', which specifies the verb (update) and resource (job). This distinguishes it from create/delete/get sibling tools and indicates a general update operation, while 'Only send fields you want to change' further clarifies the scope.

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 partial-update behavior with 'Only send fields you want to change' and notes validation rules, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like hires_set_job_status or provide exclusions. Context is present but no direct comparison to siblings.

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