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

Annotations cover the write/safety profile, and the description contributes beyond them: the job appears in Arcoro immediately, identifiers are uniqueness-constrained, and the resource has no delete path. Missing is any note on auth/rate limits or error behavior on duplicate identifiers.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action, then the key constraint, then the lifecycle alternative and endpoint. No filler.

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 create endpoint with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (e.g., the new job's id) – something an agent needs to chain into exaktime_update_job or sub-job creation. Everything else an agent needs is present in the schema and annotations.

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 all ten fields including the identifier uniqueness and the location_ids/all_locations interaction. The description's only parameter-adjacent content ('identifier must be unique') restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb ('create') and resource ('a job (project)'), plus the underlying endpoint POST /v1/Time/Jobs. The parenthetical clarifies what a job is and its role in time booking, which cleanly separates it from sibling readers like exaktime_list_jobs and exaktime_get_job.

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?

Adds real routing guidance: the identifier must be unique, and there is no delete – deactivation goes through exaktime_update_job. It does not state what to do when a duplicate identifier already exists (get/update instead), which keeps it short of a 5.

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