jobber_create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says a job is created. It does not describe side effects, whether scheduling is involved, response behavior, required permissions, or any confirmation/error semantics. The line-items note is the only extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'Create'.

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 sentence with no filler. Core purpose is front-loaded, and the line-items instruction is a useful, economical addition. Every word earns its place.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It gives no return expectations, no guidance on required fields beyond what the schema already shows, and no notes about clientId sourcing. The schema compensates for parameter details, making it minimally viable, but the agent must infer broader context.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning: 'Include line items for services or materials' restates the schema's lineItems description without providing formats, defaults, or interdependencies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new job/work order in Jobber for a client'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like jobber_create_client and jobber_create_invoice. The client relationship and line items hint further prevent ambiguity with jobber_create_quote.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining clientId via jobber_list_clients (that hint lives only in the schema) or contrast with quote/invoice creation. The phrase 'for a client' weakly implies a prerequisite but is not actionable.

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