save_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds one useful bit of context beyond them: the record is created with status 'saved'. It says nothing about duplicate job_ids, required fields, or what happens if the job is already tracked.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the key effect (status 'saved') is placed up front. Nothing is padded or restated from 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with a required undocumented parameter and no usage routing, the description is thin; it covers the action and its state effect but not the inputs or alternatives an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the required 'job_id' parameter is never mentioned in the description, leaving no guidance on its format or provenance (e.g. from search_jobs). The optional 'notes' parameter is likewise unexplained. This is a clear case where the description should compensate for the empty schema and does not.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add a job') plus the resulting state ('status saved'), so an agent understands the effect without opening the schema. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like update_status or list_applications, which is where a 5 would come from.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as update_status, list_applications and get_job present, the description never says whether this is for first-time tracking versus status changes, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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