mark_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool with no annotation support.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks context about return values, error conditions, or the fact that it's a write operation. With no output schema or annotations, the description should be more explicit about behavioral expectations to be fully complete.

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 100%: both id and status have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra value by tying them to the action ('by its ID' and 'application status'), but it doesn't provide new details beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Update the application status of a job by its ID' clearly specifies the action (update), the resource (application status of a job), and the method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes this mutation tool from the read-only sibling tools like fetch_jobs, search_jobs, and get_pipeline.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's for changing a job's status rather than listing or searching jobs. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so it only meets the implied-usage bar.

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