copy_job_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Update' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as partial-update semantics, permission requirements, or what happens when only one field is provided. It is adequate but not enriching.

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 a single sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the action, resource, and the specific fields involved, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple update tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance distinguishing this from copy_job_update_definition, but the overall clarity of the operation compensates for that.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'name or description' aligns with the displayName and description parameters, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('copy job') and narrows the scope to 'name or description', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_job_update_definition. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 description implies when to use the tool - when a copy job's name or description needs updating - but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that structural changes should go to copy_job_update_definition, leaving the selection guidance to inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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