job_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns the created job view, which is useful, but it omits the mandatory 'confirm' acknowledgement gate that governs whether anything is written — a meaningful behavioral detail the description could have surfaced.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the notable inputs. The '(Step 51)' parenthetical is internal jargon that adds no value to an agent, a minor blemish on otherwise efficient writing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core fields and states the return value, but it never mentions the required confirm flag or the semantics of name/retry_attempts, leaving gaps an agent would have to infer.

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 coverage is only 22% (cron and confirm), so the description must compensate. It documents path, webhook_url and gate_quality_min with a 0-100 range, adding real meaning, but leaves name (required), dataset_id, table_name and retry_attempts entirely unexplained — over a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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: 'Register a scheduled scan job', with the key inputs (cron, path, quality gate, webhook). It is clearly distinct from job_trigger/job_update/job_remove by the word 'Register', but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings or from jobs_list.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from job_trigger or job_update. The only implied context is that it creates a new job rather than acting on an existing one.

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