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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds real behavioral context: the automatic job-folder creation, the initial not_started status, and the company-wide name uniqueness rule. It doesn't say whether the operation is reversible or what a duplicate-name attempt returns.

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 core action and side effects before the follow-up pointer. The trailing 'WRITE. Sortly: POST /api/v1/jobs.' is slightly redundant with the destructiveHint annotation but is short and harmless.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gotchas (uniqueness, initial status, created folder, next step) and the schema covers all parameters. What an agent needs to call it correctly is essentially present.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented with types, lengths, patterns and item limits. The description only restates the uniqueness rule for 'name', adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a job'), plus two non-obvious facts: a job folder is created alongside it and the job starts in not_started status. The resource is clearly distinguishable from the other create_* siblings (item, alert, purchase order).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool ('Then use sortly_pull_items_into_job to record the stock it uses'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not state when NOT to create a job or what to check beforehand beyond the uniqueness constraint.

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