bulk_update_job_openings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares this a write operation, flags the asynchronous execution model, and names the returned bulk_action_uuid with a pointer to get_bulk_request_status for progress. It omits permission requirements and reversibility, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then return/polling guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the async flow, and how to check progress. It leaves permission requirements and the scope of updatable fields to the schema, which is acceptable given the rich input schema.

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 both the openings object and callback_url. The description only adds a workflow hint on where to get ids; it adds no syntax or field-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update or close many openings') plus the async batch nature, which naturally separates it from bulk_create_job_openings and bulk_delete_job_openings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('close all of a job's openings at once') and a workflow hint ('list_job_openings → ids') for sourcing input. However it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops at clear context rather than explicit routing.

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