create_job_from_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral context: it requires the Sales and Workflow modules plus the write scope, and it mandates user confirmation before execution and verification afterward. It stops short of describing reversibility or what happens to the source proposal (the archive side-effect lives only in the schema).

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 action, the bridge framing, the hard requirements, and the operational steps. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers prerequisites, the required modules/scope, the confirmation step, and the verification path. Only reversibility and the archive behavior are left unstated, which are minor gaps given the schema covers the parameters.

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 six parameters including the two required ones. The description only reinforces that proposal_id and job_name are required and should be user-confirmed, adding little beyond the schema's own text.

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 (Create) and resource (a job with tasks) and the source (an accepted proposal's line items), then labels itself the 'Proposal → Workflow bridge,' which cleanly separates it from sibling generators like generate_invoice_from_proposal and copy_proposal.

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?

Gives clear context: the source proposal must already be accepted, and it prescribes a confirm-before-calling and verify-with-search_jobs workflow. It does not explicitly contrast the tool against the nearby generate_invoice_from_proposal / copy_proposal alternatives, so it falls just short of explicit alternative routing.

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