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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds substantial context: it sets the quote status to Converted, warns that later quote edits don't propagate to the job, states the confirmation requirement and how to disable it, and notes the API-key access need. This is behavior beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and mostly every sentence earns its place. There is mild redundancy between 'By default you confirm each call; you can switch that off' and 'confirm with the user before each call,' which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects (quote set to Converted, no downstream sync), confirmation behavior, and auth requirements. It stops short of describing what the resulting job reference/ID looks like on return, which would fully close the loop.

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 schema already documents quote_id, user_ids, and start_date. The description adds light meaning ('Optional start date and team members are set on the job') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Create a job from an approved quote') and even anchors it to familiar behavior ('as Convert to Job does in Jobber'). An agent can distinguish this from jobber_create_quote, jobber_list_quotes, and jobber_get_quote without opening any schema.

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 prerequisite is clear (the quote must be approved) and the required quote_id is sourced from list_quotes in the schema. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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