job_event

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior: appending a timeline event, mutating the job's current phase when phase is provided, and supporting failure expansion via data.log_tail.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted text. It communicates the core operation and key conditional behavior efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies enough context for correct invocation, though it does not fully explain all event levels or the relationship to sibling job tools.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces phase and log_tail semantics, but adds limited meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Append one timeline event' to a job. It clearly identifies the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related job tools such as job_restatus, job_verdict, or job_finish.

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 gives useful conditions for specific fields: phase updates the job's current phase, and error/crash events require a message and should carry data.log_tail. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of the many sibling job tools or when not to use it.

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