update_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact not derivable from any structured field: every change is retained in the job's history, telling the agent that status moves are auditable and recoverable. It still omits any permission or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is stated before the behavioral footnote. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Still, for a write tool with two undocumented parameters, the description is thin — it omits transition validity, notes semantics, and failure behavior, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 only 33% (only 'status' carries an inline description listing the pipeline values); job_id and notes are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any parameter — it does not say what notes are for or whether job_id must reference an existing application — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource are clear: 'Move a job through the pipeline' identifies this as a job-status transition tool, which is distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_job or search_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with save_job or list_applications, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_job, nor any precondition (e.g., job must already exist, allowed transitions). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'move a job through the pipeline'.

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