update_job

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds context those fields cannot: MUSICA rejects raising a running job's limit while lowering works, and the new limits are re-validated like a submission. Authorization requirements (approval for >20 tokens and for jobs not submitted via this server) are also disclosed, which is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the action and the mutable fields before moving to constraints and approval rules. The parenthetical example is efficient; a few clauses are dense but none are filler.

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 destructive six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite conditions, validation rules, and approval gating an agent needs before calling. What remains unstated (return value, whether hold/release are mutually exclusive with the other fields) is minor.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it gives a format example for time_limit ('02:00:00'), restricts nodes to pending jobs, and explains what approval represents (the human's words) and when it is required. Only job_id and the default-empty semantics of hold/release are left implicit.

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 opens with a concrete verb-plus-resource ('Change a job') and enumerates the mutable fields (time limit, node count, hold/release), which clearly separates it from submit_job, cancel_job, and job_details. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It states a real precondition ('pending jobs only' for node count and for raising a limit) and explains the lowering exception, giving the agent enough to decide when the call will succeed. It does not, however, say when to prefer cancel_job or hold over this mutation, leaving one routing decision implicit.

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