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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the recurring re-run every N days and that a diff of new/removed/modified places is computed, which is real added value, but it omits whether creation is immediate, what side effects occur, permission requirements, or what the call 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It conveys the trigger, the recurrence interval, and the output semantics without redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the main explanatory work about recurring behavior, but it leaves gaps for a creation tool: what entity is produced, how to reference it later, and how the two source parameters interact. Adequate but not complete.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps loosely to the schema: 'every N days' covers frequency_days and 'a finished job or pipeline' covers the two source id parameters, but 'name' is unaddressed and no format, precedence, or mutual-exclusion rules for the two sources are given.

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 transformation: turning a finished job or pipeline into recurring monitoring, and explains the resource it produces (a veille that re-runs and diffs results). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_pipeline or create_scrap_job, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'turn a finished job or pipeline into' implies the prerequisite (a source job/pipeline that already ran) and the intent (recurring monitoring), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on choosing between source_job_id and source_pipeline_id.

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