Update job (any field)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It richly covers partial updates ('Only the fields you supply are changed'), clearing fields ('pass an empty string to clear a field'), renaming via 'new_company / new_position', custom columns via 'extra_fields', refusal on 'missing or ambiguous matches', date validation, and file backup. This goes well beyond basic what-it-does and gives the agent a strong sense of side effects and guardrails.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by efficient details on partial updates, clearing, renaming, and extra_fields, then a final sentence covers failure modes and side effects. Every phrase earns its place, making it easily scannable and informative.

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?

Given the complexity of 13 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers essential behavior: matching criteria, partial update semantics, clearing, renaming, custom fields, refusal conditions, validation, and backup. It does not mention return values or confirmation behavior, but since there is no output schema, this is not a strict requirement. It also does not reference sibling tools like 'update_job_status', which would have improved completeness, but the description is still substantive enough for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The schema covers 69% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies the partial-update behavior, the empty-string clearing mechanism, the purpose of 'new_company'/'new_position' for renaming, and that 'extra_fields' sets custom columns. These details help an agent understand how parameters interact, which is not evident from the schema alone. The description does not compensate for the remaining 31% of undocumented parameters, but it adds enough value to warrant a 4.

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 the specific verb 'Edit' and clearly states the resource: 'existing application, matched by company + position'. It conveys the tool's broad scope ('any field(s)'), which is consistent with its title. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_job_status', which is a more specialized alternative for status-only updates.

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 when to use the tool ('existing application', matched by company + position) and provides operational details like 'Only the fields you supply are changed' and 'pass an empty string to clear a field'. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'update_job_status' or 'add_job', nor does it list exclusion criteria. The intended use is inferred rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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