job_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether the score is overwritten in place or appended, whether a prior evaluation must exist, whether a profile must already be set, or what the response contains.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it leaves key terms ('current profile', the resulting score) undefined.

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-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition omits too much: return shape, error behavior, and prerequisites are all unstated. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict its effect or result.

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% and the single parameter job_id is undocumented beyond its type. The description does not explain where the job_id comes from (e.g., an id from jobs_list or job_add) or what happens if it is unknown, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Re-score') and a specific resource ('one job'), scoped against 'the current profile', so an agent can grasp the intent without reading the schema. It stops short of naming how it differs from the adjacent job_evaluate or jobs_search siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from alternatives such as job_evaluate. An agent must infer that this is for refreshing an existing job's score after the profile changes rather than for a first-time evaluation.

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