update_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unspecified fields are left unchanged (patch semantics), that the return is diff-style, and that deactivation via active=False preserves history. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't address authorization/rate limits, but for a mutation tool the disclosed semantics are substantive.

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?

Well-structured with a clear top-line summary, then semantics, then per-parameter Args list. The docstring format is scannable and front-loaded. Slightly verbose in places but every sentence earns its place, including the important history-preservation note.

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 4-param tool with an output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential semantics: partial updates, optional fields, the deactivation semantics, and diff-style return. It could mention what happens with an invalid/unknown job_id or include permissions requirements, but it is largely complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description compensates well. It explains each parameter's purpose, flags that all except job_id are optional, and clarifies the nuanced behavior of the 'active' parameter (pass False to deactivate, implying it defaults to not changing). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Clearly states the verb (update) and resources (job's name, reference, active state). Explicitly distinguishing from delete_job by describing the 'active' flag as a way to deactivate without deleting. The patch-style semantics ('any subset of fields') are clearly communicated.

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 explains partial-update behavior and explicitly discusses the 'active' flag use case (deactivate a completed job without deleting, preserving history). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but given the sibling list includes delete_job, the semantics imply this is for mutation while delete_job is for removal. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but has clear context.

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