jobs_reset

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

Annotations indicate destructive action (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds context that it overwrites existing fields not in new_settings, which is helpful, but does not clarify how fields_to_remove interacts or whether unspecified fields are reset to defaults or removed.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Front-loaded with action and scope. Efficient and clear.

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?

Tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, description misses explaining the fields_to_remove parameter and its interaction with the overwrite behavior. With 3 parameters, the description could be more complete.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (67% coverage). Description adds meaning to new_settings by stating it overwrites all fields not in it, but does not explain fields_to_remove. Baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage; minimal added value.

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 clearly states the tool replaces a job's settings entirely, using 'fully replace' and specifying it overwrites all fields not in new_settings. This distinguishes it from jobs_update (partial update) and jobs_create (new job), though it could explicitly mention the intended use case.

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?

Description implies use for full replacement but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus jobs_update or other alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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