UpdateDIJob

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. It states '更新' (update), implying a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., stopping/restarting jobs). For a complex update tool with 8 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a major gap.

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 concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('*This Tool has a 'MCP Resource'...') is meta-commentary that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The first sentence is direct, but overall structure could be improved by front-loading more useful information instead of the MCP note.

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 (8 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'data integration sync job' entails, what fields are updatable, or what the update operation returns. The schema handles parameter documentation, but the description fails to provide the necessary contextual framing for this mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with examples and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '更新数据集成同步任务' (Update data integration sync job) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'UpdateDIJob' in Chinese. It lacks specificity about what aspects of the job are updated (e.g., settings, mappings, resources) and doesn't distinguish this update tool from other DI-related tools like CreateDIJob or StartDIJob in the sibling list. The purpose is stated but overly vague.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing DI job ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like CreateDIJob (for creation) or UpdateTask (for general task updates). The second sentence is a meta-instruction about MCP Resources, not usage guidance for the agent.

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