copy_job_update_definition

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

The 'long-running' parenthetical adds a useful behavioral signal beyond the annotations, indicating the operation may not complete synchronously. However, it does not explain how to check completion, whether the update replaces the entire definition, or what the caller should expect after triggering 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the operation and the long-running warning first, then the two input modes. Every clause earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, long-running behavior, and input modes. But it omits what the operation returns and how a caller should monitor or confirm the definition update, which is a meaningful gap for an asynchronous operation.

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 parameter names and types are already documented. The description adds value by framing the choice between 'parts' and 'partsDirectoryPath' as inline content versus a directory path, which clarifies how the two modes relate.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a copy job's definition') and the resource being acted on, and it adds input-mode detail (inline parts or directory path). It is distinguishable from siblings like copy_job_get_definition and copy_job_update, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_job_update or copy_job_get_definition. The inline-versus-directory distinction is an input-mode choice, not a decision between tools, so usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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