Update Job

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

The annotations already signal that this is a non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the partial-update behavior, which prevents agents from assuming omitted fields are reset. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences front-loaded with the endpoint and action. Every sentence adds meaningful information (endpoint, modifiable fields, patch behavior) with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (nested params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral context: what can be updated and how partial updates work. The schema fully documents the parameters, and the annotations cover idempotency. A small omission is not explaining job-type-specific param variations, but that is documented in the schema itself.

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?

Although the input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, the description adds value by stating that only fields in the request body are updated, clarifying parameter semantics for partial updates. This helps agents construct payloads without sending all fields. Beyond that, it does not duplicate schema details.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a job by ID') with the HTTP method and path. It lists the specific modifiable fields (meta, params, scheduled_datetime, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_job, cancel_job, and get_job.

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 clear context for using the tool on an existing job and explicitly notes the partial-update semantics ('Only fields included in the request body are updated'), which is important guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as create_job or cancel_job, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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