update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether status transitions are validated, whether changes are reversible, whether side effects occur (e.g., timestamps, notifications), or what permissions are required for this mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context, so it is not maximally effective.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks behavioral detail about side effects and valid transitions, which an agent would want before invoking a write operation.

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%, and the status enum is fully enumerated with per-field descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the id format or the semantics of each status value, which is the baseline case.

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 names a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("the status of a job application"), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_application, but the intent is still clear from the wording.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_application or list_applications, and no mention of prerequisites such as the application must already exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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