Mark jobs complete

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the tool resolves and closes jobs in a single step rather than requiring a prior lookup. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible or what happens when a customer name matches multiple jobs, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Lead sentence states the action, followed by usage triggers and examples, then the get_jobs exclusion - a sensible front-loaded order. The three example phrases are near-duplicates of the trigger list and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

With a full schema, no output schema, and annotations carrying the destructive flag, the definition gives an agent enough to route and call correctly. It leaves open behavior a destructive tool should clarify: precedence when multiple of date/jobIds/customerName are supplied, and whether ambiguous customer matches close nothing or everything.

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 100%, so each parameter's role and required-when condition is already documented in the schema. The description restates the date/customerName usage patterns and adds no new format, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity rules beyond what the schema provides, so this is the baseline 3.

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+resource with scope ('Mark jobs as complete/done'), and the phrasing distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_jobs and other mutations like cancel_job and reschedule_job. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates trigger phrasings ('close jobs, complete jobs, mark jobs done, finish jobs') and supplies concrete examples. It also names the alternative path and rules it out: 'Do NOT use get_jobs first - this tool finds and closes jobs in one step.'

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