Update or upsert JobZyn job

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

Annotations already mark this as read-write, destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those flags: partial-update semantics, 201 creation on missing job, status-based publish/unpublish, and forwarding of custom fields. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 tight sentences front-load the core operation and scope, then add the essential upsert, partial-update, and custom-field behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with a nested job object and no output schema, the description covers the key call semantics: identification, partial update, creation fallback, title requirement, status effect, and custom fields. It stops short of describing response/error behavior, but the annotations and detailed input schema carry the rest.

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 about 50%, and the description adds useful conditional semantics not explicit in schema: the external ID is the lookup key, title is required for creation, and unknown/custom job fields are passed through. It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but the schema already documents most field meanings.

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 names a specific operation ('Update a job by external ID'), the HTTP method/resource (PUT /job/{externalJobId}), and the write scope. It also distinguishes itself from create by stating the upsert behavior: if the job does not exist, JobZyn creates it (201).

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 gives clear context: use external ID, only supplied fields change, creation requires title, and status can publish/unpublish. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling tools like jobzyn_create_job or jobzyn_unpublish_job, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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