passgage_update_job_position

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates a job_position, but does not reveal whether it performs a partial or full update, how missing records are handled, what the response contains, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. No word is wasted.

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?

Although the tool is simple with two parameters, the 'data' parameter is an open-ended object with additionalProperties true, and the description gives no guidance on what fields or structure to use. There is also no output schema or annotation to clarify return values or side effects. Given the large family of sibling CRUD tools, this description provides insufficient context for an agent to confidently use it without further investigation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters: 'id' as the UUID of the job_position to update, and 'data' as the update data. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it also does not add any extra meaning, such as which fields are updatable or how the data object is applied.

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 an existing job_position' clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (job_position), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_job_position, get_job_position, and delete_job_position. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage is implied by the phrase 'Update an existing' — it should be used when modifying an existing job_position, not creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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