Update Job

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it updates an existing job and requires at least one field to update, which implies partial update behavior. It also notes the return summary. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, states requirements, then provides a compact list of lookup tool mappings, and ends with the return type. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for a tool with 43 parameters.

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 complexity (43 params, nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description effectively covers how to source parameters and what to expect. It lacks explicit mention of corner cases or whether updates are partial vs. full, but it covers the main usage requirements. The list of sibling tools also helps contextualize that this is the job update tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by mapping each complex parameter to the correct list/search tool (e.g., 'list_job_statuses for job status IDs'), helping the agent know how to obtain valid values. It also clarifies the requirement of 'at least one field to update,' which is not explicit in 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 'Updates one existing Recruit CRM job by job_slug,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from create_job by saying 'updates one existing' and from other update tools by naming the specific entity and key identifier.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: requires job_slug, updated_by, and at least one field to update. It also lists the exact lookup tools needed for each parameter group (list_users, search_companies, list_job_statuses, etc.). It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for creation) or comparing against alternatives, but the context is clear.

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