update_job

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics, a diff-style response, and preservation of history when deactivating. The annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent, and potentially destructive operation, so the description does not need to re-state those; it provides useful context without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and well-structured with a scannable Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema titles beyond what is helpful.

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 four-parameter update tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers field semantics, partial updates, the deactivation use case, and the diff-style return. It leaves null-handling implicit and does not discuss preconditions like whether the job must exist, but it provides enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so the description is the only place explaining the parameters. It covers all four parameters, marks optionality, and gives active real semantic meaning by tying it to deactivation and history preservation. Some entries like 'New name' and 'New reference' are close to the parameter names, but the subset/left-unchanged rule adds operational clarity.

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 specific action on a specific resource: 'Update a job's name, reference, or active state.' It clearly differentiates update_job from sibling tools like create_job and delete_job, and the deactivation note reinforces that this is not a delete operation.

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 that any subset of fields can be passed and that unspecified fields are unchanged, which is key usage guidance. It also frames active=False as the way to deactivate a completed job without deleting it, giving a concrete alternative to deletion, though it does not explicitly name delete_job or list exclusions.

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