Update a tracked job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context (reminder_at must be future or empty to clear; tracked_job_id differs from trackable.id/job.id), but it never states whether omitted fields are preserved or whether the update is reversible/partial.

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?

Front-loads the one-sentence purpose, then organizes parameter and output notes under clear Input/Output headers. Slight redundancy with the schema, but no wasted sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the required ID and delta semantics are covered. What is missing is the effect of a destructive/partial update on unmentioned fields, which an agent would want before calling a destructiveHint=true tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the description largely restates it, including the reminder_at future constraint and the ID disambiguation. Baseline 3 is correct when the structured schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Updates) and resource (tracked job details) and enumerates the affected fields (notes, deadline, salary, tags). It implicitly distinguishes itself from tracker_update_status by enumerating detail fields, but never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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: the field enumeration makes clear this is for non-status details, which separates it from tracker_update_status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no statements about prerequisites or exclusions.

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