Update job status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: 'Validates the row exists and backs the file up before writing.' This goes beyond a bare 'update' and reassures the user about safety, though it doesn't detail error handling or return values.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds key safety details. Every word 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 simple 4-parameter update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is updated, matching criteria, validation, and backup. Missing return-value/error behavior is a minor gap, but the description is sufficient for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping parameters into roles: 'status (and optionally the notes)' and 'matched by company + position.' This clarifies how parameters relate, which is extra beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Update the Status (and optionally the Notes) of an existing application.' It specifies the matching criteria (company + position), which distinguishes it from generic update_job or other mutations. This is a precise verb+resource+scope statement.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it updates an existing application identified by company and position. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use update_job for other fields'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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