update_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the allowed status values, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid input. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes key details without excess.

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 update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and allowed statuses. The 'result' parameter is explained only in the schema, but that is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of optionality or usage of 'result'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact status options ('Accept, Complete, Fail'), which is not enumerated in the schema. This compensates for the otherwise generic parameter 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 verb ('updates'), the resource ('status of a job'), and lists the allowed status values ('Accept, Complete, Fail'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'post_job' by specifying workflow management for service providers.

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 provides clear context ('manage your workflow as a service provider') but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient given the sibling set, but lacks explicit 'when not to use'.

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