Update a JobBOSS2 record

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior: request data is validated against ECI's OpenAPI schema. It also flags that key names and writable fields may need discovery, but doesn't detail post-update effects 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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action first and the required discovery step immediately after. No filler or duplication of schema information.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and the explicit describe-first instruction, the agent has enough to attempt a correct call. The only gap is a direct explanation of the `keys` parameter's role, though the description points to a tool that resolves it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It indirectly explains that `keys` identifies key names and `data` contains writable fields, but never explicitly defines the three parameters or how they combine. The resource enum is self-explanatory.

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 states a concrete action ('Patch') on a JobBOSS2 record, which is clear and update-specific. It doesn't explicitly contrast with jobboss2_create or jobboss2_get, though the PATCH verb implies modifying an existing record.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: run jobboss2_describe_resource first to inspect key names and writable fields. It does not discuss when to choose update over create/list, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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