update_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Update' which implies a mutation, but it does not explain whether notes are overwritten or appended, what happens if the job_id does not exist, or how invalid statuses are handled. It lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second lists valid statuses. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple and the description covers purpose and valid statuses. However, it omits behavioral details like prerequisites, side effects, and error handling, which are not covered by annotations. The presence of an output schema likely handles return values, but the description still feels incomplete for a mutation tool. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by identifying that 'status' and 'notes' are the updatable fields and 'job_id' is the target job. It also lists all valid statuses, which is a critical constraint not present in the schema. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare parameter names.

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's function: 'Update the application status and/or notes of a saved job.' It specifies the exact fields it modifies (status and notes) and provides the list of valid statuses, which differentiates it from sibling tools like set_job_description or save_job. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'of a saved job' implies this tool is for existing jobs, giving some context that it's not for creating or searching. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it scores at the implied-usage level.

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