gerent365_create_job_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral context. It only states the basic create action and mentions some fields; it does not mention side effects, permissions, required fields, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 five parameters, one required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that 'name' is required, explain the 'description' parameter, or indicate what response to expect. For a create operation, more context is needed for successful invocation and error handling.

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?

The description lists three of the five parameters (hourly rate, color, department), which helps summarize the tool's intent. However, it does not clarify the two parameters missing descriptions in the schema ('department' and 'description'), and the schema already describes name, color, and hourlyRate. With 60% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Crea un nuevo puesto de trabajo' = creates a new job position) and identifies the primary resource. The verb 'crea' distinctly separates it from sibling tools like update, delete, and list, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: you would use this tool when you need to create a job position. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., updating an existing position). The context is straightforward enough for a CRUD create operation, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.

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