update_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: a module dependency, a write-scope authorization requirement, and a read-before-write plus user-confirmation protocol for a mutation. What it omits is what happens on an invalid or disallowed status, and whether the change is reversible or triggers downstream 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then the safe-call procedure. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and there is no restatement of the name or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, auth prerequisites, and a safe invocation sequence, which covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining hole is the set of valid status values, which is absent from both the schema and the description and will force the agent to guess.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing at the parameter level, and notably leaves the critical gap unaddressed: 'status' has no enum and neither the schema nor the description says which status values are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a job's status') and usefully disambiguates the overloaded term 'job' as Project/Engagement, so an agent knows exactly what object is being mutated. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling update_task_status or explain how job status differs from task status.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('Requires the Workflow module and the write scope') and a concrete pre-call procedure: read the current job with get_job and confirm the new status with the user. It names a sibling tool to call first and the condition for doing so, which is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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