mark_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set status' implies a mutation, but it never states whether the change is idempotent, whether it can overwrite an existing status, what permissions are needed, or what happens on an invalid job_id — all material for a write tool.

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?

A single terse line with no filler, and the enumerable values are placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unspecified: the effect of the operation, idempotency, and failure behavior are all missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by enumerating the accepted status values, which the schema does not encode as an enum. However, job_id is left entirely unexplained, so coverage is only partial.

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 gives a specific verb (Set) and the resource being changed (a job's status), and the enumerated values make the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like find_jobs or job_details beyond the implicit fact that it mutates rather than reads.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only guidance is the list of accepted status values, which is parameter information rather than usage routing.

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