jobs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses MODE (read+limited write), AUTH (OAuth 2.0 required), CREDITS (0/free), and OUTPUT format (Job objects with specific fields). While it doesn't detail side effects of duplicate_job, it adequately covers the behavioral profile beyond the schema.

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?

Concise and well-structured: brief opening sentence, then sections for mode, auth, credits, output, usage. Front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage relative to siblings, behavioral traits, and parameter enumeration. Complete for its complexity.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the action parameter by mentioning sub-operations but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 manages OrbiAds campaign deployment jobs, distinct from GAM background jobs. It specifies the resource (jobs) and operation (manage, with sub-operations get, list, duplicate). This distinguishes it from siblings like gam_jobs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (check OrbiAds job status) and when to use the sibling gam_jobs (GAM backend operations). Also explicitly says 'NOT the same as gam_jobs', providing 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.