Set job priority (scheduling staff)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description reveals behavioral traits: it modifies the job, triggers SLA auto-escalation, disarms SLA when changing away from p1, and records notes on activity trail and webhook. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a title line and a paragraph. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints, prerequisites, and side effects. It is complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds context beyond the schema: clarifies that sla_deadline is only valid with p1, must be future, and is business-local naive datetime. Also explains note's audit purpose.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'job priority', and specifies constraints (non-archived, non-completed). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mainly CRUD operations for other entities.

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 explains when to use the tool (for setting P0-P3 priorities), details allowed priority values with their meanings, and specifies constraints (sla_deadline only with p1). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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