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

Annotations already cover non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable operational context by requiring job-write permission and stating direct single-job creation in the selected business. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint, which the schema's idempotency_key description also supports.

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 sentences with every clause earning its place: the scope, permission requirement, and the key customer-resolution prerequisite are front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

The tool is a 12-parameter write operation, but 100% schema coverage means most parameter detail is already external to the description. The description covers the main non-obvious prerequisites: permission and customer resolution. The response shape is not described, but no output schema exists and the idempotency_key parameter supplies retry semantics.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents the parameters. The description reinforces the customer_id flow ('resolve customer first and pass verified customer ID'), but this mostly echoes the schema property description rather than adding substantial new parameter-level meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Creates one job') with a clear scope: the selected FieldRobin business and a required job-write permission. This strongly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling read/search tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening their schemas.

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 useful invocation context: use it to create one job directly, only when the connection has job-write permission, and after resolving the customer. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for creating customers, but the 'resolve the customer first' guidance is a clear precondition.

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