jobhound_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It makes the mutating nature clear ('update') and lists valid status values, but it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or any required permissions. For a simple update, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage guideline, and a compact argument list. Every element earns its place with no wasteful words.

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 two-parameter update tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and arguments. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It falls short only by omitting any prerequisites or notes on what the update does to existing data, but overall it is largely complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by documenting both parameters: 'job_id: integer ID' and 'status: interviewing, rejected, applied, failed, queued.' This adds critical meaning, including an explicit enum list that is missing from the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Manually update a job's status.' The verb 'update' combined with the resource 'job status' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like jobhound_get or jobhound_status, which likely read or retrieve status.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this when you get an interview invite or rejection.' This gives clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which is why it doesn't score a 5.

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