save_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses idempotency, the snapshot behavior, that saved postings survive delisting, and that the job parameter accepts a job_id, URL, or URN. This is strong transparency beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action and key snapshot behavior stated first, followed by the idempotency rule and parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation semantics: what gets saved, idempotency, and the flexible job identifier format. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, it is slightly ambiguous what happens if a duplicate save includes both a note and a status change, since it only says the note is appended.

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 must compensate. It successfully explains the most important parameter, `job`, by specifying accepted formats (job_id, URL, or URN). It does not elaborate on `note` or `status`, but those are reasonably inferable from the schema's defaults and enum values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and a clear resource ('a job to the user's local application tracker'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it stores a snapshot that survives delisting. This makes it easy to tell save_job apart from related tools like list_saved_jobs, update_job_status, or add_job_note.

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 gives clear behavioral context for when to use the tool: any job can be saved, and if it is already saved, the note is appended instead. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the idempotency rule effectively guides the agent's decision-making.

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