update_job

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

Given only idempotentHint=true in annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses the RFC 6902 array body requirement (flat objects are rejected), and — most valuably — that schedule PATCHes return 200 while silently failing to persist, a failure mode an agent could not otherwise know. Minor deductions for the internal spec-file reference and the unaddressed question of whether omitting an optional field clears or preserves it.

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?

It opens with an internal status banner ('EXPERIMENTAL for schedule edits — Phase 3 (spec/02-tools.md)') rather than the tool's function, and spends sentences narrating the author's debugging history ('two separate live attempts... tried both /job/schedule and /schedule'). The actionable content is buried mid-paragraph.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the definition covers the most dangerous behavior but omits basic update semantics (partial vs. full replacement, effect of null fields) and any statement of what a successful response looks like.

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 only 20% (just 'Plain cron string' on schedule), so the description should compensate more than it does; it names the three editable fields but says nothing about configuration's allowed contents or whether null means 'leave unchanged' versus 'clear'. It adds a little mapping value over the bare schema but leaves the highest-risk ambiguity unresolved.

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 never states plainly that this tool updates an existing job's name, schedule, or configuration; the purpose must be inferred from asides like 'schedule edits made through this tool' and 'name/configuration edits use the same confirmed format.' It also does no work to distinguish itself from siblings such as create_job, delete_job, or get_job.

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 a useful caution (schedule edits are unverified, prefer name/configuration edits), but no when-to-use framing, no routing to alternatives, and no prerequisites or permission notes. The agent is told the tool is risky without being told when to reach for it.

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