Create job

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds concrete behavioral details: it calls POST /services/{serviceId}/jobs and reuses the service's image and environment. It does not mention async behavior or side effects, but given the annotation coverage, the added context is valuable and not redundant.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful usage details, an API reference, and a clear distinction from cron jobs. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant filler, though it could arguably be slightly more streamlined.

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 covers the core purpose, usage context, and distinctions from sibling tools, and includes a documentation link for further details. It does not describe the return value or asynchronous behavior, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only serviceId has a description). The description clarifies that serviceId refers to an existing service and implies startCommand is the command to run, but planId remains completely unexplained. It does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Create a one-off job using the provided service' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself from cron job creation by naming render_create_service and render_run_cron_job as alternatives. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 usage context: 'Starts a one-off job on an existing service, reusing its image and environment.' It also explicitly states when not to use it ('This is not how you create a cron job') and points to the correct tools for cron jobs, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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