update_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates status but does not mention idempotency, error handling, permissions, reversibility, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and allowed values, and lacks fluff. It is concise but could be more specific about usage context.

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?

The description covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately for a simple tool, but given no output schema or annotations, it omits details like expected response behavior, error conditions, and prerequisites for valid job IDs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds clarity by listing allowed status values and explaining the 'result' parameter as 'output or proof of work,' which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates job status with allowed values (Accept, Complete, Fail). It specifies the verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like post_job or get_transaction_status.

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 suggests using this tool 'to manage your workflow as a service provider,' giving a general context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., creating a job via post_job).

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