Update job posting

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a mutating operation on an existing posting, but omits whether the update is partial or full replacement, any permissions required, reversibility, error behavior, or return value. For an unannotated mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb and resource and ending with the id requirement. It contains no filler or redundant schema details, though the id clause could arguably be folded into parameter documentation.

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 two-parameter update operation, the description plus the schema's 'Any subset' note provides enough to invoke the tool with id and a fields object. Missing context around usage alternatives and behavioral side effects is already penalized in other dimensions, and no output schema means return values are not necessarily required, but update semantics remain implicit.

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 description adds 'existing' and 'identified by id' semantics to the otherwise bare id parameter, and 'fields' maps to the fields object. Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not enumerate allowed field names, though the schema partly compensates with 'Any subset of: title, department, location, type, description, published'.

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 names a specific action ('Update'), a concrete resource ('job posting'), and the targeting mechanism ('identified by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_job_posting and delete_job_posting while accurately describing the operation.

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?

Using 'existing' and 'identified by id' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created posting, not for creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly name create_job_posting or delete_job_posting as alternatives, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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