update_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it updates the status, but does not mention what happens with invalid statuses, required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could benefit from additional detail, it is not verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter details and usage context, which are needed especially with 0% schema coverage.

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 add meaning beyond the schema. It lists example valid statuses ('Open, Hold, Closed') but does not specify whether these are exhaustive, nor does it explain the format of 'job_id'. The description provides limited value for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the specific resource ('a job opening's status') with example statuses ('Open, Hold, Closed'). It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_job_opening' (create) and 'update_candidate_status' (different resource).

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 implies usage when needing to change a job's status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is not appropriate. Given the number of sibling tools, some indication would be beneficial.

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