update_job_post_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a 'Write operation' and that setting 'offline' reverts the post to draft — a meaningful state side effect. It omits permission/auth requirements and reversibility details, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 segments: action first, then behavioral note, then ID-discovery hint. No filler and the operation is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, mutation nature, status semantics, and how to obtain the ID. Nothing essential is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the real-world effect of the 'offline' value and how to source the job_post_id. This exceeds what the field descriptions alone convey.

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 ('Publish or unpublish a job post') and clarifies that it governs visibility/publish state, which distinguishes it from generic editing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling update_job_post, so a 4 rather than 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?

Provides a concrete discovery workflow for the required job_post_id ('list_job_posts_for_job (job_id from list_jobs → match by name)') and notes the 'offline' → draft behavior. It stops short of stating when to use this tool instead of update_job_post or other siblings, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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