acp_create_job

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the network (Base) but does not disclose that this is an on-chain transaction requiring wallet activation or that the job won't be active until funded via acp_fund_job.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the essential parameters. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description explains what and where, but it omits the surrounding workflow entirely. It doesn't mention that after creation, an agent might need to set a budget or fund the job, nor does it reference the output (e.g., job ID, transaction hash). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of lifecycle-related siblings, this is a noticeable gap.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description simply restates four of the required parameters without adding extra meaning or clarifying the units or default behaviors already present in 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a job on a specific router (Virtuals ACPRouter on Base) and lists the key parameters (provider, evaluator, description, expiry). This distinguishes it from siblings like acp_get_job or acp_set_budget, and even from erc8183_create_job by naming the ACPRouter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as acp_set_budget, acp_fund_job, or the ERC-8183 variants. The description does not explain the job lifecycle or how this creation step fits into the overall workflow.

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