save_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'bookmark' but does not detail side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether duplicate saves are allowed. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

Description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and purpose, earning its place.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, missing behavioral context (e.g., authentication, duplicates) given the absence of annotations reduces completeness. Adequate but could be improved.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for parameter 'jobId', so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the information.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'bookmark' and clearly identifies the resource 'job', with a clear purpose 'for later review and application'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_job' (retrieve details), 'search_jobs' (search), and 'get_saved_jobs' (list saved jobs).

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The description hints at when to use (to save for later review), but provides no 'when-not' guidance or alternatives. Sibling 'get_saved_jobs' could be mentioned as the complementary tool for viewing saved jobs.

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