Update job status

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'It reaches no one' discloses that no notification is sent, and 'one more call sets it back' discloses reversibility, which sharpens the destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false signals. Minor gap: nothing about validation failures for unknown custom status names.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and short enough to scan, but the first two sentences restate the same idea ('Set a status on a job' / 'Sets a job's status'), costing a sentence that could carry new information.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what it changes, how to express custom values, absence of side effects (no notifications), and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining how custom statuses are spelled ('spaces as underscores') and pointing to Settings > Jobs > Job Statuses as their source, which the schema does not say.

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 ('Set a status on a job') plus the scope (built-in or custom statuses). No sibling tool touches job status mutation, so the description makes the tool's role unambiguous without needing to name a competitor.

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?

Anchors usage to the equivalent UI action ('as Change Status on the Jobs list does'), which tells the agent this is the sole mutation path for status. It does not state prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or whether the job must exist / be in a particular state), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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