job_setSuspension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates that suspended jobs won't execute and that resumption re-enables them, but lacks critical mutation context: no mention of idempotency, failure modes (e.g., job not found), or whether the change is persistent/reversible.

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?

Compact two-sentence structure with clear progression: first states the action and target, second explains the behavioral consequences. No redundant phrases, though mentioning 'by ID' when no such parameter exists wastes the agent's attention.

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 state-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The missing ID parameter in the schema makes the tool unusable as documented, and there's no coverage of error cases, prerequisites, or side effects expected for suspension operations.

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?

Despite 0 parameters (which typically warrants a baseline of 4), the description references an 'ID' parameter that doesn't exist in the schema. This contradiction creates confusion about how to specify the target job, downgrading the score from the baseline.

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 (suspend/resume) and resource (job), and distinguishes from job-definitions by specifying 'specific job'. However, it claims the tool operates 'by ID' while the input schema has zero parameters, creating a critical mismatch that impedes correct invocation.

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?

Explains the behavioral effect of suspension (execution blocking) and resumption, but fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'jobDefinition_setSuspension' despite the similar naming pattern. No guidance on when to use job-level vs definition-level suspension.

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