update_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose key side effects: archived hides the job, and the change is recorded in the job's event history with an optional note. It does not mention transition restrictions or permissions, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by precise supporting detail about status flow and side effects. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and important side effects. Minor gaps remain, such as whether transitions can skip stages or whether archived is reversible, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 does interpret the main parameters: job_id is 'a tracked job', status is the pipeline, and note is optional and tied to event history. It doesn't detail the job_id format, but the meaning is sufficiently conveyed.

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 names a specific verb, 'Move a tracked job through the pipeline', and elaborates the exact status flow with the statuses themselves, including the special 'archived hides it' behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saving jobs or adding standalone notes.

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 clearly indicates this is for advancing job status, not for saving or note-taking. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pipeline vocabulary and the event-history note clarify when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings like add_job_note.

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