update_job

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral details: partial POST, only non-None fields forwarded, server-side preservation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but still offers substantial transparency. Slightly less than perfect because it could note that updates are mutations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly convey purpose, update mechanics, and guidance for missing fields. No wasted words.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks parameter semantics and any details about what the response contains. For a tool with 9 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'the fields most commonly edited are exposed' without explaining any parameter roles or constraints. The agent gains no semantic information about individual parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Update a job requisition via partial POST to /v1/jobs/{slug}', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_job by noting that only commonly edited fields are exposed, and mentions create_job for other changes.

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 clearly states when to use this tool versus create_job for editing other fields, and explains the partial update behavior (only non-None fields forwarded, others preserved).

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