update_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Record' suggests a write operation, but it does not specify whether omitted fields are overwritten, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. A mutation tool with seven parameters needs more transparency.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the core action with no filler. It is efficiently written, though it opts for brevity at the cost of substantive detail.

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?

Given seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is far from complete. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the description still leaves critical gaps around parameter semantics, usage conditions, and behavioral expectations.

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%, and the description only offers the generic context of a 'triage decision' without explaining any of the seven parameters. The names fit, rank_score, rank_verdict, and status provide some inference, but the description does not define formats, allowed values, or how parameters relate to each other.

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 states a specific action ('record a triage decision') and a target resource ('a stored job'), making it clear the tool operates on existing jobs. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the verb-object pairing is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'against a stored job' implies the tool is for updating existing jobs rather than creating new ones, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like ingest_jobs or job_detail. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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