docs_typing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does supply useful context: pause/resume is stateful ('resumes where it stopped'), and status surfaces progress, ETA, and verification. However, it never flags that 'cancel' is irreversible/destructive, and it omits the blocking semantics of the 'wait' action entirely (only the schema mentions it).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the check/control framing and the action inventory, then the stateful-resume rule and the default-job rule. Every clause earns its place; the only blemish is that the action list is incomplete, omitting 'wait' which the enum contains.

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 two-parameter job-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action set, the resume guarantee, and the default target reasonably well. It is still short of complete: the destructive nature of cancel and the blocking/timeout behavior of wait are not stated, and with no annotations those behavioral facts must come from the description.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the enum, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the omitted-job default ('acts on the most recent one') and by expanding what 'status' returns (progress, ETA, verification), which the schema's one-word enum values do not convey.

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 pair ('Check or control docs_type jobs') and enumerates the five lifecycle actions it supports, so an agent knows this is the control plane for jobs created by docs_type rather than the generator itself. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with docs_type or docs_status, but the 'docs_type jobs' scoping does most of the differentiation work.

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 gives one concrete usage rule: 'Without job, acts on the most recent one,' which tells the agent the job parameter is optional and what the default targets. It never states when to prefer this over docs_type or docs_status, nor when each action is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the check-vs-control split from the verb list.

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