firefighter_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond structured fields: extend adds lease minutes, urgent/normal changes the job's tier while it waits. But it says nothing about whether cancel is destructive or reversible, what happens to a job already running, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause maps to an action. The telegraphic phrasing ('tier, while waiting') is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it is not padded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what each action does at a high level and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. It falls short on consequences, state preconditions, and return behavior, which an agent would want before invoking a job-changing operation.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that minutes applies only to extend and translates the action values urgent/normal into a tier change. That clarification of conditional parameter relevance goes beyond the flat enum-free schema.

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 says 'Change your job' and enumerates four actions (extend, urgent, normal, cancel), which gives a rough sense of a job-control tool. However, it never states what a 'job' is or what the overall effect of the call is, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like firefighter_wait or firefighter_plan. The intent is inferable but vague.

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?

Parenthetical hints imply when each action applies: extend when more lease time is needed, urgent/normal to change tier 'while waiting', cancel to abort. That is implicit usage guidance per action, but there is no explicit when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must the job be in a waiting state?), and no routing to alternative sibling tools.

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