x_api_create_compliance_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses the mutating, high-risk nature, required bearer token, environment-selection behavior for scope/credential resolution, common failure conditions (e.g., missing credentials, rate limits), and safety warnings about validating scope and payload before use.

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 uses labeled sections that make it scannable and information-dense. It is longer than strictly necessary—for instance, the 'Use when' line repeats the opening phrase—but each section like 'Common failure conditions' and 'Expected response shape' serves a purpose.

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 complex wrapper tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers response shape, failure conditions, prerequisites, safety, and an example. However, it doesn't explain what a compliance job is in domain terms or what the body payload should contain, relying on 'documented request payload' as a placeholder.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, plus the role of body. However, it leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType unaddressed beyond the safety warning mentioning authorizationKey, so not all parameters gain additional meaning.

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 compliance job with the verb+resource phrase 'Create Compliance Job.' However, it does not elaborate on what a compliance job is or explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like x_api_get_compliance_jobs or x_api_get_compliance_jobs_by_id, though the verb 'create' does differentiate it.

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 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including alternatives like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, which gives an agent clear decision-making context.

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