Update Sub Job

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals partial-update behavior (omitted fields retain values), confirms the return value (modified sub job), and details error codes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This enriches the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and gives the agent actionable expectations for failure scenarios.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs every sentence with useful information: partial update, id resolution, return value, error mapping, required parameters, API area, and endpoint. There is no filler or repetition, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, error behavior, return type, and API reference. The error code enumeration and the instruction to resolve id via list tool close gaps that would otherwise require external knowledge. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that id must reference an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool, and by indicating that the sub_job object contains only changed fields. However, the sentence about omitted fields is slightly ambiguous given that all top-level parameters are required, which introduces minor confusion.

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 opens with 'Update a specified Sub Job', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_sub_job, list_sub_jobs, and delete_sub_job. It further clarifies the update semantics with 'Send only the fields you intend to change', which is distinct and unambiguous.

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 description provides clear usage context: it instructs the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, ensuring the record exists. It also describes when updates are appropriate (changing existing records) and outlines common failure modes, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create sub_job.

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