accelo_create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call requires specific permissions, what the response contains, whether required IDs must pre-exist, or what happens if an optional field is omitted. The only added behavioral hint is 'Initial status ID', which implies a status transition at creation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence is good and the arg list is scannable, but each Args line largely restates the schema property name plus title (e.g. 'date_due: Due date'), adding length without much new information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits valid values for the against_type/type_id/status_id foreign keys, says nothing about the created object or its return shape, and gives no error or permission context. An agent could construct the call but would likely guess at enum-like string values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it flags unix timestamps for date_due/date_started, clarifies that against_type/against_id are an object type/ID pair, and that manager_id is a staff ID. However, it never enumerates valid against_type values (company, prospect, contact, etc.) or explains the 'fields' return-projection, leaving key semantics unresolved.

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 and resource ('Create a new job (project)'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling read/update/delete job tools. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from accelo_list_jobs or accelo_update_job, but the verb is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as accelo_create_task or accelo_create_issue for work that isn't a job. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for job creation purely from the name.

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