update_job_config

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares destructiveness, that no history is kept server-side, that omitted settings are lost, warns against plaintext credentials, and enumerates the three required environment flags plus the request byte limit. This is far beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information: the operation, the destructive consequence, the pre-read step, the credential warning, and the authorization prerequisites. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter destructive write with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the safety profile, preconditions, auth requirements, and size constraints an agent needs before calling. Nothing material is missing.

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 supply all parameter meaning. It does add useful semantics for config_xml (full replacement, omitted settings lost, size-bounded, no credentials), but job_name is never characterized and no format or validity constraints are given for either field.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Replace a job's config.xml in full'), immediately distinguishing it from create_job_from_xml (creation) and get_job_config (read) in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly what operation this is without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Read the current config first with get_job_config'), routing the agent to the correct companion tool before mutating. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_job_from_xml or copy_job for cloning, but the 'in full' replacement framing makes the boundary clear enough.

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