update_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful precondition that the job must not be running and that overrides are scoped to config.process[0]. It does not explain error behavior when the job is running or how unspecified config fields are treated, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the precondition is front-loaded before the mechanics. The backtick notation and parenthetical are slightly compressed for a first read but earn their space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the unmentioned `gpu_ids` field and the absence of any failure-mode guidance leave the definition only partially 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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it clarifies that `config` is YAML/JSON and that `overrides` are dotted paths inside config.process[0], matching create_job. However `job` and especially `gpu_ids` are never mentioned, leaving a meaningful gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) plus resource (job) and narrows scope to 'a job that isn't running', which cleanly separates it from start_job, stop_job, and create_job in the sibling list. It also names the two edit modes (config replacement vs. dotted-path overrides), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only jobs that aren't running) and points to create_job as the reference format for overrides. It does not spell out when to prefer a full config replacement over overrides, or what to do if the job is running, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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