move_update_job

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

Annotations already convey read-only=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds that the update is partial ('name and/or metadata'), but does not disclose side effects like whether metadata is merged or replaced, or how the expand parameter alters the response. No contradiction with annotations, but limited added behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise while still stating resource and fields.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and output schema present, the description covers only half the parameters. The missing expand semantics and lack of metadata-merge behavior are notable gaps, but annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return values, making it minimally adequate.

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 mentions name and metadata, but omits the required job_id and entirely omits the expand parameter, which controls response shape. An agent cannot understand the expand options from the description alone.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('a job'), and the exact fields involved ('name and/or metadata'). This differentiates it from sibling update tools (move_update_take, move_update_client, move_update_file) by resource, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Clear context: use when you need to rename a job or change its metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the job resource scope is enough to route selection among update_* siblings. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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