job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, or return behavior. It discloses nothing, leaving the agent completely blind to whether this is a read, write, or destructive operation.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise writing. A single word provides no structured or scannable information. While it is technically brief, it fails to satisfy the requirement that every sentence earns its place, as there is no meaningful content.

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 13 parameters including nested objects and enums, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically incomplete. An agent has no idea what inputs to provide, what the tool returns, or what side effects may occur. It is far below the minimum viable definition.

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 by explaining parameter relationships or purpose. It adds nothing about the 13 parameters, including required fields like context and operation_id, or the action enum (retry/resume/cancel). Without description, the agent cannot infer intended usage.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what it does, or how it differs from the many sibling tools like job_cancel or job_resume. The description offers zero context for selection.

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