Link JobZyn external IDs

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

Annotations provide read/write and idempotency hints, but the description adds crucial detail: existing external IDs are not overwritten, result statuses include linked/already_linked/not_found, and batches can partially succeed. This goes beyond the structured annotations and sets accurate expectations for response handling.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral constraints that matter most (no overwrite, partial success). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating result statuses and explicitly warning about partial success. For a single-parameter, low-complexity tool with annotations covering safety, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% and the schema already fully describes the links array, jobzynJobId, and externalJobId. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond restating these concepts, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('external ATS IDs to existing internal numeric JobZyn job IDs'), and adds the endpoint and write scope. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like create, update, and unpublish by focusing on existing jobs.

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?

Context is clear: this links external IDs to existing internal IDs, so agents can infer it is not for creating or updating jobs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this only when jobs already exist', leaving some inference to the agent.

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