update_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool mutates job state, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether CANCEL is irreversibly destructive, or whether PAUSE/RESUME have any queuing effects). It also doesn't mention any permissions or whether actions are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but the action enum provides some clarity for the agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, which is ideal for an agent's prompt context.

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 2-parameter tool with a clear schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from stating the expected response (e.g., success/failure indicators) or any constraints (e.g., actions only on active/pending jobs). The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral context unclear.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions for jobId and action, including an enum for action. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it just restates that these actions operate on operational state. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Updates the operational state of an active or pending background batch job.' It specifies a verb (updates), a resource (operational state of a job), and the scope (active or pending). It distinguishes from siblings like get_background_jobs (which likely reads) but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like execute_next_job_step or manage_stalled_downloads, though the specific action set (PAUSE/RESUME/CANCEL) is implied.

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 implicitly indicates usage: to change the state of an active or pending job, not for completed jobs. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_next_job_step (which might advance a job) or manage_stalled_downloads (which might handle stalled jobs). No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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