jobber_update_job_status

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, and it only conveys that 'update' mutates state. It does not disclose whether status changes are reversible, whether transitions can skip stages or move backward, whether validation enforces the workflow order, or what the response looks like. The inclusion of 'cancelled' in the enum but not in the described workflow is unexplained, leaving a genuine ambiguity.

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 sentences totaling ~22 words. The core action is front-loaded ('Update the status of a Jobber job'), followed by a compact workflow arrow. No filler, no repetition of schema field descriptions — 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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage this is mostly adequate, but the description leaves a meaningful gap: it does not clarify whether the workflow permits skipped or backward transitions, and it fails to address the 'cancelled' enum value that sits outside the documented progression. An agent told to move a job to 'cancelled' would find no support in the description. No output schema exists to help fill the return-value gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: the workflow chain gives ordering semantics to the status enum that the schema's flat enum list does not convey, telling the agent which statuses are meant to be used in sequence. The omission of 'cancelled' from the chain is a minor gap, but the added ordering meaning justifies 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the status of a Jobber job.' This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings, which are list/create tools for other entities (clients, jobs, invoices, quotes) — none of which mutate job status. The workflow chain 'draft → active → completed → invoiced → archived' adds further specificity.

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 workflow sequence 'draft → active → completed → invoiced → archived' provides clear context that this tool is for advancing jobs through lifecycle stages. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, but no sibling offers status updates, so the usage context is unambiguous enough. It stops short of stating transition rules (e.g., whether skipping stages is allowed).

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