add_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: skills normalization, role type inference, fit scoring, and duplicate merging. This adds significant value beyond a simple add operation.

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?

Two sentences: the first provides purpose and usage context, the second lists key fields. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given the simple parameter and absence of output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes. It lacks mention of return values or side effects, but for a straightforward add tool, this is largely 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?

The schema only defines a generic array of objects with additionalProperties. The description lists specific useful fields (e.g., role_type enum, comp_min, skills) and their purposes, compensating fully for the 0% schema coverage.

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 adds jobs to the database and specifies usage after a web search for quant roles. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs and update_job by its focus on adding new entries.

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 provides explicit context: 'use after a web search for quant roles'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear and differentiates this tool from modification or search siblings.

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