Modify an existing job by changing only the fields you provide, preserving all other settings.
Update an existing job. Only the fields you provide are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| schedule | No | ||
| httpConfig | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| retryPolicy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — partial-update semantics, only supplied fields are changed — but says nothing about permissions, whether updating schedule/httpConfig affects in-flight executions, allowed status transitions, or irreversibility of mutations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the most decision-relevant detail. Nothing is padded.
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 complex mutation tool with eight parameters, nested configuration objects, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are substantially under-specified. The partial-update note is useful but does not cover param semantics, side effects, or response behavior.
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% across 8 parameters including nested schedule, httpConfig, and retryPolicy objects, and the description compensates with no parameter detail at all. The agent must infer entirely from raw property names and enums.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing job'), so the agent knows this is a mutation targeting a single job by id. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like pause_job or resume_job, which could plausibly also change status-like fields, leaving some routing ambiguity for a general-purpose update tool.
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 gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives. With pause_job, resume_job, and create_job as siblings, an agent gets no signal on whether status changes should go through this tool or the dedicated ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.