Update Sub Job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object, which goes beyond annotation information.

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, consisting of a few sentences with the purpose stated first. It includes required parameters and the API endpoint, avoiding unnecessary details. It could trim the redundant 'Work Breakdown Structure records' phrase but is efficient overall.

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 PATCH update tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the goal, partial update behavior, required parameters, and API domain. It does not detail field validations or error cases, but these are often implicit in an update operation.

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. The description reiterates that id, project_id, and sub_job are required, but does not explain what the sub_job object should contain (since it's an object with additionalProperties). The reference to 'only the supplied fields are changed' helps, but the meaning of the sub_job object remains vague.

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 updates a specified Sub Job (Work Breakdown Structure record) using a PATCH endpoint, and that only supplied fields are changed. It names the resource and verb precisely, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Work Breakdown Structure records', which provides basic usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist (e.g., create_sub_job, delete_sub_job), leaving guidance incomplete.

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