Refresh an Existing Poster Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: recovery attempts occur within the existing job budget, results are saved, the frozen approved price is settled, and no re-pricing happens. It stops short of saying what the tool returns or what happens when the job cannot be advanced.

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 mutating-action warning is front-loaded and each sentence carries substantive information about behavior or billing. A couple of clauses ('new-creation credit cap does not reprice an accepted job') are tangential and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema and only two boolean/string parameters, the description covers the essential concerns: mutation semantics, approval requirement, budget/billing scope, and the read-only alternative. It leaves the return value and failure behavior unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'Explicit approval of that job' reasonably maps to the `confirmed: true` const, but the `id` parameter's meaning (which kind of job/owner identifier) is never addressed.

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 states a specific action (continue/advance an existing owned job) on a specific resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from creating a new poster request. It is clear without opening the schema, though the front-loaded jargon ('advance', 'settle frozen approved price') is somewhat domain-heavy.

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 an explicit precondition ('only with explicit approval of that job and its original cost'), names the read-only alternative ('Use get_poster for read-only status'), and states a prohibition ('Do not replace a failed job automatically'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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