create_sdg_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by distinguishing 'Preview or create' and by noting the job is 'bounded' and 'manual-trigger,' which implies it will not run automatically. However, it does not clarify side effects of preview vs. create, persistence, or what happens after 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The randomizer details are presented in a clear, scannable way without redundant or filler wording.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and a highly technical randomizer schema; the description only covers part of that complexity. Required parameters like camera_prim_path, frame_count, and annotations are not explained, and the relationship to later start/status/delete SDG job tools is missing.

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 schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the opaque 'randomizers' parameter by specifying typed records and the accepted 'transform' and 'light' fields. However, other parameters such as 'command_id', 'idempotency_key', 'rt_subframes', and especially 'annotations' remain under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Preview or create') on a concrete resource ('bounded manual-trigger BasicWriter SDG job'), which is clear and informative. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start_sdg_job, so differentiation is left partly to naming and context.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are referenced. The phrase 'manual-trigger' implies the job does not auto-start, but the agent must infer the intended lifecycle relative to start_sdg_job, get_sdg_job_status, and related SDG tools.

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